Effectively Wild: A FanGraphs Baseball Podcast - Effectively Wild Episode 2355: Touch of Gray

Episode Date: July 30, 2025

Ben Lindbergh and Meg Rowley banter about how the expanded playoffs may suppress trade activity and, prompted by the passing of Ryne Sandberg, the factors that can make a player punch above their weight from a popularity perspective. Then (31:47) they answer listener emails about triples hitting, Bryce Harper vs. José Ramírez, the effect of […]

Hello and welcome to episode 2355 of Effectively Wild, a baseball podcast from FanGraphs presented by our Patreon supporters. I am Ben Lindberg of The Ringer, joined by Meg Raleigh of FanGraphs. Hello Meg. Hello. So our plan today is mostly to do some emails, keep it pretty evergreen in advance of the trade deadline so that we don't get scooped so that this is not instantly obsolete. It will be, well, it'll be immediately obsolete, I guess.

That's our plan. Just pre-render it obsolete by avoiding most of the news entirely. And then at the end of the week on Friday, we will circle back and we'll do a trade deadline debrief about whatever happens. I do have one pre-trade deadline thought, which is, we've talked a little bit about how it seems like it might be a slow deadline. Last year was sort of slow in terms of the stars and top prospects traded and some similar conditions this year. Of course, as soon as I say that, there'll be some massive move. I don't feel like I can predict these things with

any great accuracy, but as we sit here a couple days before the deadline, don't feel like I can predict these things with any great accuracy, but as we sit here a couple days before the deadline, doesn't seem like it's shaping up to be one of the most eventful. And one of the reasons for that is that you have this parody, you have no great teams, you have, well, a couple terrible teams, but there are a lot of teams that are kind of in it or close enough to in it that it would be tough for them to sell. And we've talked about that, how, you know, you have three wild cards, and so it's something that people forecasted that there would just be this mass mediocrity

because the incentive wouldn't really be there to go and build a super team. You just have to be good enough to get in or at least have a plausible shot to get in. And we typically talk about that in terms of the current season that, hey, you're only a few games out of the third wild card and if things break right for you and wrong for your competitors, then you could sneak in there. I was also thinking though that that applies to future seasons too. So you're talking about the present season in terms of a rental, someone who's on an expiring contract

that might be a classic trade candidate. But if you're talking about someone who's under team control for a year or two, then you have to look forward and say, well, what are my chances then? And so I think it kind of compounds. It's like, you can't really write off that many teams in the current year, but you really can't write off many teams next year or the

year after. Cause there are plenty of teams that are having disappointing seasons, the Braves, the Diamondbacks, the Orioles, et cetera, but they're not going to sell wholeheartedly. They're not going to say, Oh, we're done, we're packing it in, it's time to rebuild, because you can figure you're going to be back there next year. And even if you're not a great team, even if you're the Royals, let's say we talked about the Royals last time, even if they're a long shot this season,

well, how long a shot are they next year, realistically? So I think that kind of encourages teams for better or worse, and I'm not sure whether it's one or the other, maybe a bit of both, to sit on their hands because they can kind of see themselves as contenders quite easily, if not this season, then soon. I think that that's a sharp insight because, you know,

like take the Diamondbacks, I think, are maybe the best example of this on this year's market. I guess you could put the Braves in there. I just find the Braves being in this position to be so surprising that I kind of forget to include them. They came into the season with, I think, quite different expectations than, say, the Diamondbacks did, where it's like, oh, they were going to contend for the division as long as everyone was healthy. And then it was like, no, everybody's dead. Thankfully, not actually. But, you know, they were going to contend for the division as long as everyone was healthy. And then it was like, no, everybody's dead. Um, thankfully not actually, but, um, you know, they, they suffered all of these injuries under performance, et cetera, et cetera.

So you look at Arizona, mid market team, trying to contend with a couple of heavy weights at the top of the division, at least understands itself to be solidly in wildcard, uh, contention every year. And like all of their guys just got hurt, you know? A lot of their guys got hurt and the ones that stayed healthy other than Merrill Kelly, at least on the pitching side, have been disappointing, right? Like this, you know, I'm sure that Zach Allen wishes

that last season or the year before was his platform year into free agency. So you have that reality to contend with, but like you don't want to waste any of Corbin Carroll's prime. You don't want to waste, you know, the last sort of reliably predictably good part of Ketel Marte's contract. And so yeah, you can't really entertain the full tear down. And I don't know that that would, you know, be something, even if you weren't worried about sort of how this plays in Phoenix or what it means for you maximizing Carol's Prime or whatever. Like, I just don't think that it's necessary for them to do that.

But like, yeah, you're kind of in a fix right now, right? And Ben, I wish you could have seen my face when I realized that Eohanioswarius had been hit on the hand. Oh yeah. Because like, as we're recording, I don't think we've gotten an update more than what we got last night, which was that Eohanioswarius, for those of you who weren't just wrapped by the Diamondbacks last night, he got plunked on the hand. This is like the second time in a couple of weeks he got hit in the All-Star game. It looked quite painful and it was one of those where

the trainer put pressure on the finger and he went, ah! You know, and like pulled away and I'm like, oh, okay. So in the same day, we may very well have lost the best relief arm that was thought to be available because of gambling nonsense or at least the possibility of it and also the best bat on the market. Cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool,

cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool, cool They are likely to be on the edge of it next year, if not in the thick.

And you don't want to lose your dudes. Those are the dudes you need. What are you going to do? Have to reacquire them later? Disaster. So I think you're right that we're in a little bit of a tricksy bind. And some of it too is that the guys who we thought coming into the year were going to be like deadline defining guys have just been kind of bad this year, right? Like who's who's thrilled to be trading for Luis Robert

Jr. right now? You know, he's certainly not going to yield the kind of prospect return that I imagine the White Sox were hoping he would when they said no to a couple of deals in the off season, right? Sandy O'Connter is like... Not bad. Yeah. They've both been better after their disastrous starts. But yeah, like Robert's been good since he came back from the IEL and Sandy's been better. But yeah, it's not that they were seen as a slam dunk. Oh, these will be star caliber players potentially who will be moved. And that's not the case.

So you might hope and bank on a bounce back and maybe the team that gets one of those guys, if a team does, will be pleased with how they perform in the rest of the season. But yeah, it's, it's not quite as exciting and not that it's new that a team might say, oh, we're having a down year, but we'll be back next year. You could always hope for a bounce back, but it's just easier to envision. Now it's just a lower bar to make the playoffs.

And so even if you're having a bad year, you don't have to forecast some enormous improvement to be back in the thick of things next year. And that's why I was saying, I don't know if this is bad or good. Maybe it's bad in the short term for trade deadline excitement, but it's not bad that a lot of teams see themselves as contenders in the short to medium term. That's a good thing. So you have Ryan McMahon, who's signed for a couple of years.

Well, he's on the Rockies. So the Rockies may be an exception to this, where it's hard to envision them being good next year. It's hard to know how the Rockies envision themselves in any year, but unless you're on the Rockies, unless you're way out of it, then yeah, you can talk yourself into it, and it might not even be irrational to do so.

And so there aren't that many guys who could be moved without really hamstringing you for future seasons. If the Twins trade Joe Ryan, if the Nationals trade Mackenzie Gore, if the Braves trade Matt Olson, you know, these are pretty big good players. But all of those teams are probably looking at themselves and thinking, well, do we want to be without Joe Ryan next year? Like we could, we could be in this or even the Nationals. So we've got, we've got James Wood now. Do we want to trade our best pitcher and, and doom ourselves for the next couple of seasons when you never know things could break right and we could get good or the Braves bounce back. So then you're just

left with not that many Brent Rooker. I mean, even the A's who knows where there'll be long term, but they suddenly have a pretty compelling core of position players who aren't old. And some of them are under team control for a long time, longer than, well, wherever they'll be in 2029, I guess. So do you want to trade those guys? Maybe not. So then maybe, yeah, it's just Robert and Alcantara and Marcel Zuna and just guys like this. You know, maybe a Mitch Keller sneaks in there or something,

but that's just, it's not exactly the white knuckle down to the deadline, trade deadline adrenaline that we're used to. Who knows? We may well end up being surprised. It's happened before, but at the moment, it doesn't feel like things are like, those dominoes are set to fall, but we'll see.

And in this era, if you are gonna trade a Suarez or Rhino Hearn, let's say someone on an expiring contract, you're just not going to get that much back for those guys anymore. So even if you're a huge prospect hound, probably you're not going to be blown away by the caliber of the prospects who are traded because teams realize the value of those cost control guys and they realize that rarely is a trade deadline pickup decisive, those couple months of the regular season, plus you hope the playoffs, that has some value, but rarely does that make or break a team.

So there's only so much you can give up, and I think teams have kind of calibrated that. So that's where we are, but for all we know, we'll come back in a few days and eat our words and talk about what a wild and surprising deadline it was. And I hope that's the case. I'd like to be wrong about this being a bit boring. The other thing that I'm sorry to have to talk about is the death of Ryan Sandberg at

65, of cancer, which he had been fighting for some time. And we were just talking before we recorded about the fact that, you know, Ryan Sandberg means so much to so many people, just a whole generation, obviously, of Cubs fans, but not just Cubs fans, just baseball fans in general. And he was a great player. So it's not mystifying that people really loved him and retained that love for him.

But I think to some degree, you had to be there maybe, or if you came along a little after, as we did when we really started getting into baseball hardcore, he was around, but it was the tail end of his career. So I was aware of him, I was aware that he was a great, but he wasn't really great anymore. So I missed the peak, I missed the prime.

And it can sometimes be hard to put yourself in the position of someone who saw that. You can look at the stats, but some guys sort of transcend the stats and he was clearly one of them. So I was thinking about what leads to a player becoming that kind of player. Just revered, beloved, you know, more famous and cherished than someone of equal talent and on-field

accomplishments because he was certainly a deserving Hall of Famer but there are other guys with comparable career wars who just don't, yeah, they don't generate accomplishments because he was certainly a deserving Hall of Famer, but there are other guys with comparable career wars who just don't, yeah, they don't generate that same sort of attachment and hero worship that he did. Even contemporaries of his, I think if you, if you looked at players who were sort of in a similar war range and, and overlapped with Ryan Sandbergberg like Alan Trammell, let's say, or I don't know, Paul Molitor. I really liked Paul Molitor, but like Barry Larkin a little later. I mean, these guys are beloved by fans of their teams. Tigers fans love Alan Trammell, obviously,

but on a national level, I just don't know that there's that same attachment. And there are a lot of reasons for that. Sandberg won an MVP. Trammell just was beaten out for one by George Bell, but they had almost identical JAWS scores, for instance, and Sandberg was a third ballot Hall of Famer. Trammell was essentially a 16th ballot Hall of Famer got in via the Veterans Committee. So I think, I think there are a few things that might explain it. Some of which are entirely under Ryan Sandberg's control and some

of which aren't. And some of which are sort of serendipitous. I was remembering that back on episode 1391, Sam did a stat blast about how basically every baseball Ryan is named after Ryan Sandberg. It's just like, and not just players, but people like the name Ryan really had a measurable bump in popularity right when Ryan Sandberg was good. And those things were highly correlated. So you can go back and listen to that research. And Ryan Sandberg was named afterine Duren, the pitcher, but you did not have as many Rhines

who were named after Rhine Duren as Rhine Sandberg. I guess partly it's that Rhine, R-Y-N-E is somewhat of an unusual name or was at that time at least. So if there were a bunch of babies named Alan after Alan Trammell, maybe it wouldn't be quite as apparent as the Rhine Effect. Right, right. But, okay, so I think part of it was just the kind of player that Ryan Sandberg was. Sure.

He was exciting, power-speed combo, topped out at 40 homers and 54 steals in different seasons, obviously, but still he had that kind of top end power and speed and a good glove. Second baseman, of course. I feel like that was also maybe something that if you were maybe not the most athletically gifted, if you were not a prospect yourself, because like so many kids, if you have great baseball talent, you're going to be a shortstop probably on your little league team or whatever.

And Ryan Sandberg was a second baseman and a great second baseman. And so he was kind of your guy, I guess, if you weren't the shortstop or the center fielder or something. Yeah. It's just like, yeah, Ryan Sandberg plays second base. It's cool because of him, but great glove, lots of gold gloves. So he could kind of do it all both sides of the ball, played a lot of games. And also just like on a personal level, pretty squeaky clean reputation, kind of almost a Dale Murphy type of persona.

Just, you know, everyone liked him, respected him, how hard he played his work ethic. Gritty, gutty, grinder kind of guy. Yeah, you know, all the G words. So it was largely that. But also, I think it was when he arrived and where he arrived. So you had WGN, the Superstation, right? You had a lot of people across the country who were Braves fans or Cubs fans, or at least aware of those teams because they could watch those teams' games. Because WGN was, you know, and Turner, I mean, it was just on national TV. You could get it on cable or satellite and whatever. So like those Cubs teams and the Braves teams

that were on TBS, you were just gonna be highly aware of those teams. That helped I think. And even the so-called Sandberg game in 1984, he had this huge memorable game that sort of established him on a national stage. He hit a couple of home runs late off of Bruce Souter and the Cubs pull out this win and extra innings.

Well, that was an NBC game of the week game. Right. And that really meant a lot back then, cause that might be the only game you could see other than maybe your local team, if you had one. Right. So if that was some other game, or if he's not on WGN, is that the Sandberg game?

I mean, maybe to Cubs fans, but does the Sandberg game mean anything to anyone else? So he benefited from that timing, from that publicity, from that exposure. And then I think part of it also was that he was coming along when the Cubs had been bad for 40 years, basically. And like often really bad and just an embarrassment. We talked about the Lee-Elia rant

when Elia died recently, that was 83. And I mentioned that one of the things that frustrated Elia and caused him to pop off like that was that he felt like the team was coming together and they had good young players like Sandberg and he could see things improving and he felt like the fans weren't really recognizing that they were just on the verge. They were on the precipice of something. And then in 84 that paid off and it wasn't like Sandberg just was along for the ride

or he was just, you know, a bystander or something. He was the best player on that team. And that team doesn't win 96 games and the division without him probably, but. Definitely not, yeah. You know, like the team had improved to the point where adding a superstar like Ryan Sandberg

could put them over the top. Right, yes. So like if he had come along to some other team that was already good or had been good recently, it wouldn't have meant quite as much as Sandberg just delivering the Cubs from this four decades in the wilderness and bringing it back to the playoffs a couple of times.

So that's not like out of his control. He played a huge part in that, but also, yeah, like conditions had to be ripe for him to be able to bring them to the promised land, essentially. And also, I guess the last thing I'd say is that he was like the default favorite player for any Cubs fan then, because he was far and away the best player. Like there was no one else on that 84 team, position player-wise, at least I think like Leon Durham was the second most valuable player by Fancraft's War, second most valuable hitter who was like, you know, roughly half the war of Sandberg.

So like, there was just no, no one else kind of competing for the spotlight on that Cubs team. And if you look at that whole era, like Sandberg's peak, I guess, maybe 84 to 92 or something, you had some Andre Dawson in there, you had some Mark Grace, you had Rick Sutcliffe, Greg Maddux comes along a little later, but doesn't really peak until he's about to leave. So he kind of like had the team to himself as like the far and away best player.

So there wasn't a sidekick the way that Alan Trammell, for instance, had Lou Whitaker or something. It was like, you know, if you were a Cubs fan, then he was just going to be your favorite player. There was just no one who was nearly as compelling. And maybe that goes hand in hand with the fact that, okay, if he's joining some super team with this roster of stars, then he'd have to compete for people's attention and affection. So I think all of those things combined and it's not to like take anything away from Ryan Sandberg's excellence, but it's just a lot has to line up, I think, to

vault an athlete into that transcendent icon player of a generation type status. And it's largely skill and performance on the field, but that's, that's part of it. I don't even know what percentage of that it is. Like I think a huge chunk of it can be other factors. Yeah, like he came along at just the right time and then he played incredibly well, you know? And when you marry those things together, you're gonna be, you know,

you're gonna be someone's favorite player. And when part of the coming along at just the right time involves people who aren't in, you know, the greater Chicagoland area being able to see you. Well, great. You can have the Sandburg game and we know what that means. And it's funny because like my main, I also don't have like memories of watching him really.

And I don't, you know, I didn't have sort of a, a, an allegiance or affection to him, not because I thought he was like overrated or anything. It was just cause like I didn't watch the guy play. But the thing I knew about him was that he was a Washington guy. Like that was the main thing that I knew about him was like, Oh, he's from Spokane. You know? So like, look at that. Like I made good.

How nice for him. So, you know, sometimes, um sometimes you transcend regionality and sometimes it comes right back around to that for, you know, people from your neck of the woods, which ended up being true for me. But I mean, you know, gone too soon, certainly. And I know a lot of people are quite devastated by that. So it's a, it's a sad thing. But I think you're right that there are like, again, it's not to take anything away from him. Maybe it's to implore people to like, appreciate their own versions of it. But like, there are guys like this, you know? And sometimes they kind of like break containment from your team and become guys within the game and we can

all appreciate them. But I think it's good to take time to like, you should appreciate your guys because maybe they'll become other people's guys. Maybe they won't, but they'll still be precious to you. And that's a, that's a special thing about the game. So yeah. Another factor, I think single team player that yes, that helps. You know, yeah, huge help. Yeah. And so if you don't have that late career journeyman phase, and yes, Alan Trammell was a lifetime tiger. And, and so that helps. But yeah, if you're Eddie Murray, let's say, and you know, you're an Oreo for a really long time, but then you're a Dodger, and then you're a Med, and then you're in Cleveland. And I guess that helps in a sense in that you are exposed to other fan bases

who otherwise that era might not have seen you outside of All-Star games, let's say. But also, yeah, you just have that special fondness for someone who never left, who was just with you. And if you're Paul Molitor and you had a very long brewer's career, but then you also had a Blue Jays phase and that was a meaningful time for the Blue Jays. And then you had a Twins phase at the end of your career. It's just like a little bit of... That sounds dirty.

Yeah, but just like split loyalties a little bit. So Tony Gwyn, another contemporary, and when he died even younger, that was another case, because he's Mr. Padre. He's there so long that he's your guy. But yeah, that coupled with the just amplifying effect of the Superstations. That's another thing maybe is that Rhino, well,

never hurts to have a cool nickname too. Yeah. That's probably part of it, I guess. Maybe, yeah. Yeah, Rhino. It's good. It's really good. I mean, did Alan Tremble even have a nickname? I don't know. Not really, right? Not a notable one. So also I think that the game was changing around Sandberg. And so maybe he became one of those guys who was sort of like held up as, well, people would often say play the game the right way about Sandberg and that's always like,

well, what does that mean exactly? It can be kind of loaded. It can be kind of loaded and coded, but yeah, like part of it was that he was coming along and was a star at a time when steroids were seeping into the game and everyone's getting juiced and there was no suspicion surrounding him. And he, you know, he hit for power, as I said, but aside from really that 1990 season, it wasn't that kind of power. And, you know, he put the ball in play and had speed and all the rest of it. So it was a little bit of,

you know, everyone's sort of a muscled up slugger. And here's this all around guy who's held up as kind of a counter to that, you know, in the way that Ken Griffey Jr. was, I guess. Although Griffey was just cool and iconic for other reasons too, but yeah. It helped if you were perceived as the one guy who was clean and who was doing it against all these guys and the playing field was tilted against you, like Pedro Martinez, people mentioned that, or even Maddox for that matter. Just just sure yeah that helps a little bit, too I think that that's right and and to be clear like, you know, I think playing it the right way and all that stuff can be cover for other stuff but like Generally support guys playing free of steroids. So like that is a that is a good right way to play in my opinion Somewhere in our listenership. There's someone going like how dare you disrespect the 13 games you played for the Phillies in 1981?

Yeah, it's true. Meaningfully, a one team guy, you know? Yeah, yeah, right. Yeah, so I think that probably encompasses the kind of legend of Sandberg. And if you were a huge Sandberg fan and you grew up with him in a way that we didn't and you think we're missing something obvious,

then by all means write in. Yeah, let us know. And yeah, condolences to his friends and family and his extended family of fans. Yeah, also when someone who was like, youthful, yeah, when he comes over to the Cubs, he's in his early 20s and and so you kind of remember him, he's frozen in time as the 24-year-old he was in 1984,

and so that then reminds you of your mortality, and he's this fresh-faced kid, and how could that guy have died and be 65, not that 65 is old, so that's part of it too. Yes, 65 is not old, that's part of it too. Yes, 65 is not old. That is part of it too. I don't know that his cause of death was announced. I know that he was dealing with prostate cancer that had returned last year, so I don't know if that was... Yeah, he had a statement just recently about how he was still fighting it, but it sort of sounded somewhat resigned.

So yeah, it's sad. And I guess also maybe this says something about how stardom was made back then and how it's made now or not made. Because when you did have those super stations, it sounds so quaint to talk about now. Like, you could only watch Cubs games and Braves games and you were happy to have that, because there just wasn't an MLB TV, you couldn't just dial up any game anytime you wanted. And now you can, and you'd think that that would make it easier

for guys to become stars, because essentially everyone has that Superstation effect. But if everyone does, then does anyone, because it's hard if everyone has that sort of megaphone or pulpit or spotlight, then they're all competing for your attention at all times. So unless you're Shohei Otani or you're Aaron Judge and you're just larger than life, and it helps if you play for the Yankees or the Dodgers or you have multiple countries who are behind you then maybe it's harder to break through the noise a little bit kind of counter-intuitively just because it's so much easier to get that sort of exposure. I think that that's right it can I don't know once again it kind of like wraps back around on itself. And I don't know, this is maybe moving

far afield from remembering Sandberg, but I always feel a tension around that conversation for myself because it's like, I want this thing I like and care about and is my livelihood to be like present for people in the cultural conversation and in the zeitgeist. But I think that one of the things about baseball that recommends it is that it can feel so local and intimate and bespoke to you. And so it's like, maybe we're in just the right spot, you know, maybe we're at just the right place where we're still seeing people come to the game fresh and come to love it. And the league and the players are making this effort to not be stuck in the mud with the way that they do things. And we're seeing that sort of down to the sports benefit and

that's all good. But also like, it's still about you and your guys a lot of the time. I think that's pretty special. So I'm, I always struggle with exactly where I want it to land. And I, I think we might be pretty close to being dialed in just right for me in terms of the amount of national exposure it has. You know, I worry about like the ongoing economics of the sport, given some of the broadcast realities and like, you would be foolish to not pay attention to that stuff. But beyond that, I'm like, I don't know, Lincoln, do you really want more people at fall league? I mean, everyone should go to fall league to be clear, but like not all at once, you

know, like stagger, you should stagger your fall. Yeah. It's more of a overlooked gem for you in the prospect people in the scouting types. Speaking of like perfect ballpark sound though. That's, that might be the last bastion. Although you are prone to at least one loud retiree per game. And I say that with respect. Good for you being able to retire.

I envy you. What will that be like for me? Probably nonexistent. But also, sometimes you guys get your group together and you yak, yak, yak, and some of us are there to work. Yeah, it's just sometimes you don't want the thing to go mainstream or there's a push and pull. It's like the classic, you follow some band as it's coming up and then they have their huge breakout and they're on a major label, and you might say, oh, they sold out or something.

Or even if not, you might just kind of miss the time when they were your discovery and your thing. And now they're everyone's thing. And you want them to reach everyone, as long as it doesn't distort what you loved about them somehow. But also you feel some ownership over that. So, yeah.

All right, I have a couple Sandberg adjacent emails here, including this one from Ryan who says, with the sad passing of Ryan Sandberg, I found myself looking over his baseball reference page. Being a child of the 90s, I'm not too familiar with the career of Sandberg except for knowing that he is one of the greatest, if not the greatest ball players from my home state.

So you have something in common there. Amen, brother. While perusing his baseball reference page, I was impressed to see that in his MVP season, 1984, he had 19 triples and 19 home runs. 19 triples alone seems wild to me. The most he hit in another season was eight, which he did twice. But it got me thinking about players who have had more triples alone seems wild to me. The most he hit in another season was eight, which he did twice.

But it got me thinking about players who have had more triples than home runs. Has anyone had more than 20 triples and 20 home runs in the same season? 30, 30 more. I know home runs and steals is a fun combo, especially after Otani's 50-50 last year. But what is the highest combo we have reached in MLB?

Yeah, that probably also had something to do with the Legend of Sandburg, just 19 triples. It wasn't even like Wrigley, some great triples environment. So that was just, that was an outlier, but a fun one nonetheless. So I did just look up on Stat Head, just the most home runs in a season

where the total of triples was at least as high as the total of home runs. And Ryan Sandberg is right up there. He is number four all time 1919. The number one is 2525. And that was of course, as we all remember, Buck Freeman of the 1899 Washington Senators. It's always on the tip of my tongue that season, you know? It's just like right there for me. And similarly, wildfire Frank Schulte in 1911, also for the Cubs, but a much earlier Cubs, 21-21 that year.

And yeah, that was a more triple-y time back then. You know, dead ball era, you had fewer over the fence homers and more balls in play and weirder ballpark alignments and worse fielders and all of it. So you just had more triples. And that's why maybe the only other modern name ahead of Ryan Sandberg is special. And that is Curtis Granderson in 2007.

The Grandy Man. Yeah, the Grandy Man went 23-23 for the 2007 Tigers. That is in 2007 to hit 23 triples. Yeah. That's an awful lot if you were error adjusting. Yeah. All the names below Sandberg are also a long time ago. Kai Kai Kyler in 1925.

Goose Goslin also 1925. Joe Ducky Medwick. We got Geese, we got Ducks. We got Sam Thompson in 1895. Roger Connor, 1897. Sam Crawford, of course, in 1901, Lou Gehrig. So yeah, it's a whole lot of pre-war guys. And then Curtis Granderson and Ryan Sandberg.

So that certainly stood out, definitely stands out if you look at his staff page now. So that's another element, like in the chain of Ryan Sandberg fandom and fame. And then the other kind of Sandberg adjacent question, though it wasn't inspired by Sandberg, comes to us from Patreon supporter Sam, who says, there are certain players you hear comped to one another for various reasons, Harper and Trout, Aronato and Machado, etc. I want to take a moment to talk about Jose Ramirez and Bryce Harper. Without even considering level of fame, I think most fans outside of Cleveland would say Harper is the better player and or has had the better career. J-Ram is currently ahead by just over one fan graphs war. So

it's true. They are quite close comps. Yes. Age-wise, they're like, I think a month apart, maybe? Yeah. Because Ramirez, 32 years, 10 months, 12 days. Bryce Harper, 32 years, 9 months, 13 days. And yeah, fan crafts, worldwide, it's 55.9 for Ramirez and 54.4 for Harper. And Sam's question continues, with them being so close right now,

it got me thinking about their careers and how different their draft day one through present day has been. Harper was one of the most famous prospects of my lifetime or any lifetime probably. Jose was so unknown, he didn't even have a Bowman baseball card produced prior to his debut,

the tops line specifically geared toward prospects. Harper has won two MVPs and has more big moments in the playoffs. card produced prior to his debut, the tops line specifically geared toward prospects. Harper has won two MVPs and has more big moments in the playoffs. Outside of 2015, there isn't much variation among their best seasons. Harper at his best is a better hitter, but Jose is more well-rounded. Harper's worst seasons are worse than Jose's. They are both more or less the same age. When I think about the next four to six years, I believe Jose's floor is significantly higher and I feel better about him avoiding serious injuries also Jose doesn't drink cow feces so there's that okay my question is in terms of counting stats and fan graphs were how

much better does Jose Ramirez have to be than Bryce Harper over the next four seasons for the average fan to not hesitate to answer Ramirez when asked who had the better career. Realistically, I don't know if there is an upbring. Yeah, I think that the thing of it is it's not about the production. It's about where they each play and about the longevity of like their place in the spotlight. It's just hard to overcome a guy who's been famous since he was 16. That's just a hard head start to overcome. To the point that I don't know if tomorrow, for whatever reason, the Guardians decided we were ready to be out of the Jose Ramirez business, which I can't imagine they would

ever say. I think he has a full note right in his deal, but I don't know if I'm right about that. But let's say that tomorrow the partnership between the two sides ended and he were shipped off to the Yankees or the Dodgers or even the Phillies, right? He became a literal teammate. I just don't know that you're going to suddenly alter the broader average fan's perspective. Now, I will say this. I think because of the size of the chasm between the average fan perception of him and the like, stat-head and or like, rabid fan perception of him, that when the time comes for those two to actually like, mount a Hall of Fame case, we're going to be so freaking annoying about Jose Ramirez, man. And like, we will be justified. I don't think

that it's going to be hard, you know? Like, I think that, I know there was a little bit of a, a little bit of consternation, Ben. There was a little bit of a kerfuffle. There was some crashing out on Blue Sky about Jose Ramirez and the Hall of Fame because, you know, every year Jason Stark does his update, where are the guys who are active and in their Hall of Fame trajectory? And I would maybe hazard a guess that everyone crashing out perhaps didn't actually read what Jason wrote, but I would say the following like Jason didn't have Jose Ramirez in the like he's a Hall of Famer camp and he uses a football analogy for that Which I find a little reflexing, but I think Jose Ramirez is a Hall of Famer I don't think there's a lot of dispute about that. He's on a trajectory

He's gonna you know barring him like retiring tomorrow I imagine that we will one day have the great delight of hearing that guy on a stage in Cooperstown But I also think that like he's a 32 year old active player So like the decision to crash out about his Hall of Fame Perception is like an active choice that you're all making that you could decide you could just make a different choice You don't have to make that choice. You could like I can tell that the caffeine has ratcheted up in my bloodstream over the last hour I'm pretty tired. Anyway, all of that to say, I don't think that Jose Ramirez could close the gap with Harper, but

I also don't think it matters because Jose Ramirez is going to have passionate, active, activist advocates when the time comes to vote for the Hall of Fame. And I think he's going to sail through on the first ballot because he's a tremendous player to the emails point, so well rounded, just like perpetually. We've, we've already talked about this, like recently, you know, just like produces these super consistent, wonderful seasons. He's an asset in the field. He's a tremendous hitter. He's super available. I think the perception that he will have more opportunity to just accrue relative to Harper is an accurate one, if only because that's been true up until this point. Harper has had long stretches where he's been unavailable due to injury.

He also has a sneaky positional advantage, right? Because there's no reason to think watching Ramirez this season that he's gonna need to move off of third base anytime soon. And now Bryce Harper's a first baseman. So like some of the war gap might start to widen out in a way that confuses the average fan who we're considering here,

if only because they don't tend to think about like how the defensive, not that Harper's a bad first baseman, like I think he's taken to the position like kind of admirably given how late in his career he transitioned to it, but he's getting whacked with that first pace positional adjustment, right? So it's going to put a natural sort of cap on some of his war on that side of things. So all of that to say, I think it's going to be fine. And I think you're right and he's wonderful. And maybe I don't think you can credibly say that he's like a hipster pick for any of the awards or the Hall of Fame.

Like he's not maybe super well known to the average fan, but like people who know baseball know who Jose Ramirez is and he's had postseason opportunity, right? So that helps too. I think this is kind of what we were saying about Sandberg and other contemporaries or other similarly accomplished players who just didn't resonate quite the same way for whatever reason. And here's another example of Harper and Ramirez. They're both great.

And it's hard to say that one is clearly better than the other. But obviously, Harper is just much more famous and if you're kind of a casual fan, certainly you would assume that he is better just because he's better known. So I don't know. I think there's probably, yes, it's just that Harper was a huge prospect and there's the East Coast bias, which is just, hey, there are more people on the East Coast just watching Harper play. And that's not the only part of it, but that is a large part of it.

Yeah. And it's not a time zone thing in this particular comparison, but just the audience size, which is another thing about Sandberg is that, okay, he was not playing on a coast, but he was playing for the Cubs, and the Cubs kind of own the Midwest, you know? And to some extent now even. And so if you're gonna play in the middle of the country somewhere, then that's the place where you're gonna get the most attention.

And he helped make that the case, and, you know, the Cubs just took a leap in popularity around the time that he arrived and propelled them to that point. But yeah, like that's, it's going to help when you play for that sort of franchise as well. So, and you know, we were talking about how often it is when a guy like either gets traded or signed some huge contract that that really can catapult them into the national consciousness, because you suddenly see how valued they are by teams,

and then maybe that makes you reappraise them. I'd be curious to see if there is just a huge bidding war for Kyle Tucker. Does that really make Kyle Tucker one of the best-known baseball players, or is there still something about Kyle Tucker that's just inherently just not courting that kind of celebrity? But, yeah, it's hard when someone really gets paid.

I think even Kyle Tucker getting traded to the Cubs this past offseason, and just the wave of Kyle Tucker appreciation. Oh, wow, this guy's really good. What will the Astros do without them? Well, turns out they'll probably still be pretty good. But you know, just like that whole... It's gotta come to an end. It's gotta end.

They're all hurt now, Ben. They're even more all hurt than they were before. And yet they keep... Well, they lost last night. How about that? Yeah. Yeah. And you could even do like an alternate history, I guess, where Sandberg is a Philly.

He stays on the Phillies. He doesn't get traded. How does that change things? Because he'd be joining a team, like the 83 Phillies went to the World Series and they had a bunch of famous players and they were good. Like the year when Sandberg debuted briefly for them, they went to the playoffs. And so how does that change things? If like Mike Schmidt's around,

and all these other famous veteran players, then does he develop the same sort of following? So yeah, it's fascinating, but I appreciate Jose Ramirez, we certainly do on this podcast. We also appreciate Bryce Harper. We appreciated him on yesterday's episode, but give them both their due.

The reason we want him to stop drinking raw milk is because we appreciate him. Sure. Right, if we had it out for that guy, if we were like, look at this bum, we'd be like, raw milk away, my guy. And we're not saying that, we're saying pasteurization, get with it, you know? Exactly, yeah.

Okay, here's a question from Nat, who says, I've noticed this year that Kyle Schwarber has started to sprout a couple of gray hairs in his beard. He's only 32, but this is the thing that happens. Only 32. Notably, he's a free agent after this season. My question is whether having some gray in the beard would in any way affect his free agent market. Even though MLB teams might be close to fully rational actors, implicit bias is real. Could he get a bigger deal if he had dyed his beard before the gray popped up? if so, how much is he leaving on the table?

This is such a perfect, this is perfect. This is a perfect question for our podcast. I'm so happy that it has been asked and that we get to contemplate the question now. Like this just feels so right, that we be the ones that really, and here's the thing, maybe, like I gotta allow for the possibility

that there being a couple little grays in there is gonna, although it maybe doesn't matter to the Phillies in particular because they employed Jake Cave and he just like is totally gray in the beard. He's got that like, it's so distinguished. Doesn't it make you look distinguished? He's also only 32. Get out of here. Yeah. Wow.

People go gray in different ways, obviously. Oh yeah, people, you know, sometimes, yeah. I'm going to announce a- More flattering than others. Yeah, I'm going to announce a personal preference on the podcast. This is meant to be like a source of comfort to our graying male listeners. Leave it be. Leave it be. You don't need to mess with that.

You look distinguished. You know, it makes you look like you've lived a life. It's a good look. It's a good look. You know, like that. Keith Hernandez, just for men in there. And here's the problem. And I'm going to bring up a different sport here.

So forgive me. But like the amount of preparation one would have to have to start addressing the gray. I don't know for a fact that Ryan Day, who is the head coach at Ohio State, football coach at Ohio State, that he dies. Do you know who Ryan Day has been Are you aware Ryan? Yes, I've discussed him on hang up and listen. So okay. So I know here's the thing about Ryan Day Well, there's a lot that one could say about Ryan Day, but I'm gonna talk specifically about the facial hair I don't know that Ryan Day is dying his beard. There is some gray in the beard

It's not like it's completely black but the color of Ryan Day's beard suggests an overcompensation, right? That there is a concern that one looks old, that one is dying one's beard in order to avoid looking old and in the process somehow looks older. Right? And so it can really come back to bite you if you don't you don't want to go Ryan Day's way. Also, I imagine Kyle Schwerber's limitations as a player, tremendous hitter, terrible in the field, a time striker problem, ba ba ba. Like those are well understood. Might there be a small bias against the gray because it makes you think he's older? No. But here's what I'd say. Like 32, starting to get old in baseball years, you know, you're getting up there in baseball years, particularly if you are effectively a DH only player, which we've seen Kyle Schwab in the field recently,

and we do not need to reappraise his defense, right? We do not need to reassess our understanding of his acumen in the field. No, not updating our priors on that one. I am updating my priors about how much of a sense of humor Kyle Schorber has about himself based on some of the recent highlights we've seen of him in the field. But I am not changing my mind about whether he should be out there. He should not. He should be in the batter's box and nowhere else.

And guess what? I have a feeling. I have a feeling. I do not know. But my sense is that he's just going to end up being a filly again. And they know how old he is. They probably know about Grey hair in places we've never seen, you know, because he's in like clubhouse. Yep. With the cow. Not with that cow. If he were in there with the cow and anyone else, they'd all be like, ooh, pasteurization. But sometimes you have to have a through line in your podcast, you know, like jokes you call back to to make people realize like, oh, this is a an ongoing conversation between friends. I also wish the thing that was a through line didn't involve raw milk, but these are the cards we have been dealt. So here we are playing them. Okay. Yes. You always have to find that balance between too many callbacks and an ongoing bits and not enough. Right. Because there's always someone who's listening to you for

the first time. Never heard you before. Doesn't know. Yeah. They don't know what you're talking about, but maybe it's just a hint. Hey, there's, there's a lot of lore here. I could get into this, but, but hopefully in an accessible way where you, you might have some inkling of what we're talking about or it's just a brief mention in passing before I suddenly circle back to it. So I think about that sometimes because we have people have been listening to us for 13 years, people have been listening to us for 13 minutes. So how do you cater to both of those audiences?

Right. Yeah, I don't want the pod to necessarily have like lore, but I have to accept that it does. So, you know, we have to think about these things. But I think Kyle Schroer will do fine. He is a limited bat, but he is one of the better pure hitters who will be available in free agency. And I think that given the state of the Phillies offense that they might just be like, please, Kyle, come on back. And he'll go, okay. Because he seems to like to play there.

So there you go. Yeah, I gotta think that it probably wouldn't make a measurable difference to your earning potential because there are so many other measurables, just so much objective data out there. If it were some other field, or if this is dating, let's say, and, uh, you know, different people have different preferences, as you just said, and it could help or hinder you.

But if you're trying to look younger and you think that that's something that's going to appeal to people, then maybe that makes a difference depending on, on what the partner you're seeking is seeking. But in baseball, there are so many other bits of data to go on that I don't know that anyone even subconsciously, I don't know, if it's if it's looking like occasionally, I'll do a double take if I if I see someone, let's say, you know, either the gray is creeping in or perhaps the hair is creeping out and I won't have realized that because baseball players, they're wearing caps

a lot of the time or helmets. And sometimes you just, you don't have a great read on where the hairline is. Yeah. And then suddenly the hairline is revealed and it's in a different place than it used to be, that you remember it being. And there's nothing wrong with that.

But yeah, you know, it can just, it can remind you of the passage of time, perhaps. And look, some people go bald, go gray at very early ages. Right. Obviously, these are correlated with reaching a certain stage of life. And so I guess, you know, I could see it maybe having mattered at some point, or if you're worried that, yeah, you're Kyle Schwaber, you have old player skills,

maybe you don't wanna look like an old player. Maybe you fear that it would reinforce the perception of you or something. But in this era, I'm guessing it wouldn't matter that much, but good question. I have a question that is just now occurring to me because you're right that yeah, look, I don't want to overstate the case But sometimes your experience of learning about a player's Hairline can be akin to a jump scare. It's like you get a shot of them in the dugout with the cap off

You're like, whoa, buddy. Those are those Arching back. It's arching back. Yeah, for me it was Mariano Rivera when I was younger and was watching Yankees all the time. Yeah, when he started to develop the prominent receding or bald spot or whatever. That was a little jarring because I remembered him as a youth. Well, and I always wonder, well, I wonder a couple of things. I think the most jarring one for me recently has been Noah Sintergaard because it's like

anytime that you have a guy who has the long hair, but then also you're like, you know, you're expecting one thing and you're presented with another often because, you know, that's how it can work sometimes. But here's- Yeah, I was going to mention Mookie too. Oh, yeah. And some guys, this is true of, I think, men regardless of profession, you know, they have their, they might have their come to Jesus moment about it earlier, maybe a loving partner

says to them, so hey, we're getting at the point where it would be better to just buzz at my love. And then they do. And, you know, that's, it's a difficult conversation, I would imagine, but I think probably one that is in the long run appreciated. But here's what I'm wondering, Ben, you know, it's not just like Rogaine for guys anymore. There are a lot of options on the growing hair back market. And here's what I'm wondering, are baseball players allowed to take those?

I would think so. Or do they interact with, because some of them do hormone stuff. And so I'm wondering if they could pose a problem for PED testing purposes. Sound off in the comments, friends. Can they take finasteride? I don't know. I would think so. Yeah, it's like it doesn't.

I don't know if finasteride is the one with hormone stuff, but some of them have hormones. They like do stuff with your testosterone. Yeah, it's a blocker right the DHT the the testosterone Byproduct or whatever it is. Yeah. Yeah, I don't yeah, it doesn't affect I don't think like what your your body levels are. Yeah, it's just sort of how it's Absorbed so I gotcha. Yeah, I would think that that would be okay But that would be okay. But that would be okay. If not, I would say to

the league, like you should be sure to give therapeutic use exemptions for that. Because some, you know, like your hair can be a very personal thing. You don't want to lose that. Sure. Yeah. Hey, breaking news and heartbreaking news. Yeah. The notifications are starting to come in, the condolences, the Royals have designated Rich Hill for assignment. No. So they're, they're really buying? You know, like I am so flummoxed by this a little bit. Yeah.

He started on Monday and it didn't go well. And he faced Atlanta and he went four innings and gave up four and walked six, which was disconcerting. He struck out three. You know everyone about this already. You know. That was no emails yet, but I'm starting to get. No emails yet, surprised by that.

My mentions, yeah. It's sad. I mean, look, we knew that we had to cherish it while it lasted, and this may not be the end, obviously. This just means that another team he hasn't played for yet can sign him, and then we can all prosper. Right, or he could remain with the Royals and get called up again and just do the Jesse Chavez

with Atlanta and be on the triple-A shuttle. So this will hopefully not be the last that we have seen of Richelieu in the big leagues this season or ever. But yeah, we were aware that the hold on the rotation spot was tenuous because it took so long for him to claim it. And so I didn't take it for granted that he was just going to sail through the rest of the regular season, especially if the Royals are still seeing themselves as contenders. I don't know whether that will change and post deadline and who knows they've

had other injuries and hopefully he'll be back. Hopefully he will not hang them up and there will be another chapter to the long and rich story of Rich Hill. It is deflating though, because we waited so long for him to come up and then just two starts you're only going to give me two starts. There's got to be more. Alright, well, we'll try to soldier on somehow. Soldier on. This episode and stiff upper lip as we continue here. All right, we had a couple kind of, how can you not be pedantic about baseball? Sort of questions.

This one is from Hallie or Haley who says, I was watching the Nationals broadcast and they said about Jake Irvin at six foot six and 240 pounds. He's built like an offensive lineman. Sure, Jake Ervin is a big guy, but he looks nothing like an offensive lineman. He looks like a tall, athletic man, nothing close to the mass that linemen have.

In fact, by my research, he would be 50 pounds lighter than the lightest offensive lineman in the NFL, Justin Herron at 290 pounds. I feel like I hear this thrown around a lot. You heard about Kyle Schwaber. Yes. He is again, who certainly looks big, but is only 5'11 and 230 pounds. His listed weight is probably low, but I'm guessing he's far from 290. I will admit Aaron Judge is often described as being built like a linebacker, which is accurate. In fact, he would be pretty big for a linebacker. Right. Judge is like bigger than Gronk. So he's he's just big. He's he's football sized. Yeah, I would probably describe him as a tight end. Yeah. Okay. And

so the question continues. In fact, Judge would be pretty big for a linebacker. But obviously, Aaron Judge is one of one. Can you think of other players who get this descriptor or a similar football comp and are they accurate? Is the Jake Ervin comp particularly egregious? So the subject line was offensive lineman creep. Are we comping baseball players too easily to offensive lineman? I was so happy to receive this email because yes, yes. I'm so glad that someone else was like, what are you doing?

Have you ever watched football? What do you know about? I think that it's an opportunity to appreciate how different athleticism can look, right? It can look so many different ways because are offensive linemen athletic in the same way within their own sport that say wide receivers are or linebackers or quarterbacks? No, absolutely not. But they are athletic, right? And are they athletic in the same way that Aaron judges? No, not remotely. Are they athletic in the same way as Shorbers? No, I would assert they are not. Is Aaron judge athletic the way that Alejandro Kirk is? No, he's not. Is Alejandro Kirk athletic? Yes, he is.

So there's like, it can take a lot of different forms, but I think you do have to think about like, the body composition piece of it before you make the comp, because you can't just do like, tall and a particular weight, right? Like that can look a lot of different ways on a lot of different bodies, which is so beautiful. So yeah, what is this about though?

Cause it's, it, it, I have, yeah, it's happening more. And I, I famously linemen both offensive and defensive. Um, and like there was differences there too, right? And there are guys who defy type on both sides of the ball and football, but like, what are we? No, like, I don't want, if I'm, if I'm a quarterback, I don't want Kyle Schwab, protecting my blindside. No, Kyle Schwab are going to get blown up. Like, what are we doing? That's not, no. I guess it's just that the pervasiveness of football makes it top of mind. And then

it's just an inapt positional comparison. Because yeah, the average offensive lineman is running six, four, six, five, right. Three bills, easy three 15, three, you know, even you and I, this can sound like I'm, I'm making fun of you, but I'm not like, you've, you, you know, so much more about football now than you're used to because you kind of have to for hang up and listen, even Even you a person who does not like if you woke up on a Sunday in the fall and you could do whatever you want One of those things would not be putting on a football game, right? Yeah It wouldn't be and that's fine. It would be a thing

I would do but it wouldn't be a thing you would do and even you were like that's not what an offensive lineman looks like be a thing you would do. And even you are like, that's not what an offensive lineman looks like. Even like to scale, even shrunken down, there aren't many baseball players who are shaped like offensive lineman. I know that maybe in the popular imagination, people think about baseball players of earlier eras who, you know, could be a bit pudgy perhaps, but some of them even nicknamed pudge. But no, like that's just a different body type. It's a different thing. Like you, I would even assert that like a lot of these guys

who are somehow drawing the offensive lineman comp, they don't even look like offensive lineman after the offensive lineman's career has ended and they undergo the metamorphosis that so many of them do when they are no longer trying to keep football weight on. Like, a lot of them don't even look like that. They don't look like post-career, you know, I mean, like Kelsey's a bad cop because he was like, anyway, centers and centers can sometimes be bomb.

But look, they don't even look like that. Where you're like, you see these guys on NFL Network because they all become commentators somehow I'm like what's with the lines always being the ones that and you're just like wow You don't have to like make sure that a quarterback making 30 million dollars a year doesn't get blown up anymore That's what you look like, you know, like there there's clearly You know, they are keeping and this is part of what I mean about the body composition piece of it, there is such intentional intervention to maintain a particular heft so that you can push back the giant defensive linemen because they're coming for your guy.

They want his ass on a sexual way. I mean, maybe. I don't know. That's not in my business. They want to kiss a little bit after they've sacked the guy, that's their business. You need to be immovable. That's just a big part of the job.

You should be causing a philosophy conundrum for someone somewhere about force-hissing objects. There's an NFL scandal currently about a player who did not want to be kissed, reportedly, right? There's Christian Wilkins of the Raiders, according to reports. Oh, I don't know about this. Said he tried to playfully kiss the top of a teammate's head. And the teammate did not care for that?

This was not well received. The teammate took offense and evidently there was like a HR was involved. I mean... And so that's why you always specify only if they want to. Only if they want to! If they want to, both parties have to want to. It's an inclusive, all-encompassing they in that instance. Yes, exactly.

Both sides need to be like about the little kiss, you know? Yeah. If they're not, then one must refrain from the little kiss, you know? It's important to have a correct understanding of the desirability of the little kiss. Yes. It is said sometimes that Mike Trout has a football build, but linebacker. He looks like a linebacker. Right, linebacker body. That's pretty accurate. Right. He looks like, you know, how thumbs always play linebacker when they... He looks like a linebacker, you know? And it can change for guys. You see players sometimes

like kind of tipping over into that build, and it's not ideal, right? And so sometimes they course correct back and it's not that, you know, again, it's not that linebackers aren't athletic, but it's like if you're a center fielder, you know, maybe you don't want to quite actually look like you could play linebacker because maybe that's going to affect your speed negatively, right? So like it's a, it's a very delicate dance that they're all doing and much like their facial hair, their physiques can change over time. And sometimes that is an intentional decision to try to mold their physicality to better fit their position.

And sometimes it's being in your 30s, you know? And yeah, not known for their delicate dances. It's kind of the well, but some of them dance and some of them do dance You know and then and then people like really like it But part of why they really like it when the big offensive linemen dance is because they're like look at that big guy dance You know, yeah, and then sometimes they sing People seem to like that too. Yeah. Okay. Here's a question from Kyle patreon supporter look at that big guy dance, you know? And then sometimes they sing, people seem to like that too. Okay, here's a question from Kyle, Patreon supporter,

who says, a recent MLB trade rumors headline stated, six former prospects who now look like change of scenery candidates, with a picture of JJ Bladay of the A's. My question for you is, can someone like Bladay still be considered a change of scenery candidate when he was also labeled as such before being traded from the Marlins? How often can you be considered such a candidate before it is accepted that you won't live

up to your prior hype? I see this as similar to Ben's rants about who can and can't be a breakout candidate. By rants, of course you mean my well-reasoned, well-supported, measured, highly persuasive assertions. Very persuasive rants. So this is a label not often as applied as that. So Kyle wants to know our thoughts. Can you be a multi-time change of scenery candidate?

So I think it is a more elastic term than breakout candidate. And I think that you can be a multi-time change of scenery candidate. My issue with J.J. Bladet's inclusion in that article is that I think J.J. Bladet is far enough away from being a prospect that he's just a change of scenery candidate. Like to group him as a prospect guy seems silly to me, just because like he's had multiple seasons in the big leagues where he's just been like a... Like what are we? I don't know that JJ Bleday would be like a... The kinds of guys who I would maybe include in that group would be guys who like maybe exhausted their prospect eligibility like the year before

and are not performing well in the majors and thus are change of scenery candidates. But like JJ Bladet had like 642 played appearances in 2024. He's not playing well this year, which is why he's not getting playing time. But setting the Bladet of it all aside, I think that you can be a change of scenery candidate multiple times in your career. I suppose there is a point where you are simply so well understood that maybe you stop earning that label, but I think that part of what gives the term some elasticity is that like, you can be a change of scenery candidate because you don't get along with that clubhouse.

You don't get along with that manager. You're blocked positionally. So like there are things and presumably you wouldn't be blocked positionally, maybe if you were like obviously better than the guy you're being blocked by. So maybe I, you know, should chill out a little bit. But I think that there are enough things that aren't about your play, but can be about your roster fit that you have a little give to that term. But like, I think at a certain point, you've been you've been around, and it's probably not the first descriptor that

someone would reach for in describing you. So yeah, cause he was a change of scenery candidate where that paid off because he was this disappointment with Miami and then with Oakland last year, he was legitimately good. And that wasn't his first season in Oakland. It was his good. So it, and that wasn't his first season in Oakland. It was his second. So it wasn't like the change of scenery immediately paid dividends, but, but I guess that counts as okay. He was a change of scenery candidates.

He changed scenery and he improved. But then if he's struggling again, then could he immediately, it almost feels like there needs to be more time between when you were a change of scenery candidate. Because it's the same scenery. Like you have to wear out your welcome a little bit. Yeah, and the scenery... Well, it's not though. No, it's not actually. It's true.

I guess maybe the fact that he's in Sacramento now. Yeah. Okay, maybe in this case then, if your franchise relocates, then I guess... Yeah, maybe everyone on the A's is a change of scenery candidate because they have been forced into new scenery. Yes, that's a good point. But it is, it is breakout adjacent because it almost, it's kind of suggests like change of scenery candidate implies that if you get that change of scenery,

then you might break out. Sometimes though, it's, it's more of a bounce back, I guess, like you've been good, but things went south and things soured somehow. And so you need a change of scenery and then you can get back to being who you were. But yeah, I would say if the change of scenery pays off, you need more than like four months of not being good to immediately be a change of scenery candidate. I guess unless your team relocated or I don't know, something else really seismic changed about you or about your surroundings or something.

But in principle, yes, I think you can be a change of scenery candidate multiple times. And we could probably come up with some examples of guys who were. All right, along these lines, Patreon supporter Benjamin said, I might be a bit behind on the first half, second half All-Star Break discourse, but I figured I'd reach out anyway. I borrowed this philosophical measurement argument

from Rent, specifically season of love. How do you measure a year in life? Actually, how do you measure a season in baseball? 525,600 minutes, 162 games, in truths that she learned or in times that he cried? My proposal is to measure the baseball season in importance-weighted storylines. Sure, the first half has broader attention, as every team still has a chance, but the second half, quote unquote, has playoff races and record chases and awards discourse, and maybe those all balance out into pre and post All-Star break. I'm not sure I actually believe this, but I believe it enough that shorthand reference to first and second half doesn't bother me as a pedant, and that's

enough for me. So using a leverage argument, etc. season long leverage, the post all-star break period, it matters more, it's more decisive, it has a greater playoff implications, etc. And so it kind of carries a psychological weight, even if it's significantly less than 50% of the schedule. I think the problem with that is that it would be absolutely confounding to someone who's not a nerd. That applies to a lot of what we talk about here. I know, but it maybe crosses the Rubicon

a little too decisively, but then are you in the middle of the Rubicon? What do you do? People say first half, second half, even if it's a team that's out of it, you still refer to a player's second half, even if he's not in contention or something. Right. I'd give a special dispensation to someone, maybe, if they were not referring specifically to the regular season. If the haves encompassed the postseason,

then you start to have a more legitimate argument in terms of percentage of time and even games played because you throw October in there and that maybe balances the scales a bit. But we never throw October in there. No, we don't really. We never do that. We always say, no, October is this separate thing, you know?

And I think that that's right. I think that that's the correct instinct. Yeah. So I don't know. No, I think it's true. The narrative weight of the post-All Star Break period, it has some heft. It punches above its weight, but that does not change my mind, I'm sorry. But a valiant attempt.

And you have to, you know, in order for it to have weight, the first half has to have happened, you know? We forget. It's like no individual game matters except all the ones that do, you know? And so what do you do with that then? Right. Okay. What do you do with that then? Right. Okay, another important error defining question. This is from Greg, Patreon supporter who says,

is it correct to say how much war does judge have or how many war does judge have? How much or how many? So this is, I feel like, man, I could maybe almost go either way on this one. It's cause like much and many it's, it depends. It's like, is it modifying a account noun or a non count noun? So you use much with a non count noun and many with a count noun. And that's like a count noun is something that can be individually counted. Like you have a certain number of fruits or something, right?

And a non-count noun is things that you can't count individually. It's just like a substance, it's air or something. Like juice. The juice of the fruits. Although if the juice is in containers, then you got a countable noun, man. Right, exactly. Juice versus juice boxes, right? The concept of juice. So that can be different depending on the context.

And I guess maybe kind of a rule of thumb is that a count noun has a singular and a plural, and a non-count noun doesn't. So maybe that's a sign, because, you typically wouldn't say one win. You can't have one win. Yeah. You wouldn't say he has seven wars or something. But no, you would not. Yeah, because the W is wins in.

You're pluralizing it sort of out of. Yeah. Right. So, huh. I think I tend to lean toward the much side of things. Yeah. More than the, how many, but I also think that like, I will say he was good for Tenwar. He posted Tenwar.

He- Amassed, compiled, accumulated. Amassed, accrued. Yeah. Yeah, yeah. Yeah. Hmm. So, you know, I, yeah, I'm going to go much over many, much more. Does judge have, I wouldn't be up in arms about it. If you said it's almost like in a single season, I might be more amenable to many. I think some of it too depends on if you're using war, the acronym, or if you're saying

the words that make up the acronym, because you would say like, how many wins above replacement has Aaron Judge been worth? That would be the way you would construct that sentence. But you would say how much war has he Judge been worth? That would be the way you would construct that sentence. But you would say how much, how much war has he accrued? So some of it really depends on the, whether you're spelling it out. And this might be part of why, this might be part of why I lean toward the much because we aren't a publication where we feel the need to like spell out wins above replacement the first time it appears in an article, or like people know what that means. So that I'm learning something about how my own experience is shaping my interaction with

the world, you know, feel like that and a new understanding of juice is really what I'm coming away from this episode with. Yeah. Yeah. Continuing to mull over in the back of my mind the Ryan Sandberg phenomenon. And I was thinking that maybe this also applies to if you are also like a lifer, you're with that franchise forever, but you're the only good guy at a really fallow period for the franchise, which would also apply to the Cubs.

Probably like Ernie Banks and Ron Santo, maybe it's like if your team stinks for a lot of that time and is notorious for that and is bad and, you know, there were others, there's Billy Williams and who I always feel like is kind of a forgotten Hall of Famer in a way. Maybe it's the generic name, I don't know. But yeah, if you're like the lone guy,

if you're Felix for Mariners fans at Loeb for the franchise, and yet you have Felix Day to look forward to and cling to, then that can also confer that sort of status on you, I think. Yeah, I think that that's an important part of it. Or, you know, the other thing that can happen, and we have to adjust our understanding of how you rise to prominence in the modern game, sometimes you have a great ass, and then all of a sudden you combine a great ass with a great catching season, you're a big dumper. Everyone knows who you are.

Big dumper. It doesn't hurt. Calralli is doing a honey bucket sponsorship partnership. Oh yeah, I saw this. He's really, I hesitate to say milking it, given previous discourse. Terrible, yeah, really bad. He is really embracing it.

It's almost getting to the point of over-expose the nickname, I think, just because he has been so central to this season that everyone is into the, it's kind of like, you know, when it's super mainstream, it's like we were talking about with music or bands earlier. It's not something just for the sickos anymore. This is everyone delights in Big Dumper. Yeah, you gotta share that ass with the world.

Right, and that thrills people who know nothing about baseball. It's like, hey, there's a catcher and he's nick Big Dumper. And it goes back to what you were saying about nicknames really helping burnish someone's legend too. Various sites are trying to tell me that Tram is Alan Trammell's nickname. I mean, I guess, but...

I mean, it probably was like in the dugout. I'm sure people called him that, but that's... Yeah, they're like, hey Tram, you know, because baseball players love a nickname, you know, but it wasn't, I would absolutely accept correction on this because I wouldn't know, but I don't imagine that people were like, ah, Tram, the way that people are like Big Dumper. No, I mean, it's less fun. That's part of it. But yeah, I don't want Big Dumper to jump the shark.

And I don't know that it can because it's still just a great nickname. Even if- And it's still a great ass. Yeah, even if it reaches saturation, it's still good. So it's not like gonna be milkshake doctor or something. Oh, milk keeps coming up here in various contexts. Okay. Another pedantic question from Dory, Patreon supporter. I was watching the Astros Mariners game on July 19th,

and upon Victor Caratini getting his third hit of the night, heard the Astros announcer say, Victor has himself a perfect night, three for three with a walk. Forgetting about the fact that the game was still going on and thus he would have to remain perfect the rest of the game to actually have a quote unquote perfect night, which he didn't, would it be justifiable to call this a perfect night? The only way I could defend it is vis- to call this a perfect night? The only way I could defend it is vis-a-vis a pitcher's perfect game, where no plate appearances result in a base runner. Here, no plate appearance doesn't involve a base runner, but it feels

a bit weak to me, especially when you consider that the Astros' win expectancy actually went down after Caratini walked in the fifth, Jose Altuve was on second base with no outs. Upon thinking about it more, I'd contend that the only time you can call someone's night perfect at the plate is if they Homer in every plate appearance. What do you think? Perfection at the plate? I'm torn. Because I don't think that we, even though it is so central to the revelation of saber

metrics, I still think we're kind of rude about on base. I feel like we're not sufficiently appreciative of guys who consistently get on base. And so I suppose that if you have a guy who is, you could say a guy had a perfect night because in every, at every trip up to the plate, he got on base, you know? And like, maybe you exclude hit by pitches, because like that's very much, I mean, there are guys who do that more often, but it's less, you know, like drawing a walk. Sure, maybe there's some charity in that

on the part of the pitcher, but there's skill on the part of the hitcher, right? Even if the skill is restraint. So... Did you just say hitcher? You've invented a hybrid. Maybe maybe Shohei Otani is a hitcher. Maybe we should call him a hitcher. I don't know. I don't. I like this coinage of hitcher. It's like when my daughter invented mitter to refer to a fielder. That's very good. A mitter is like top notch.

It just sounds like you're someone who hitchhikes a lot. Yeah. Or you have a hitch in your swing or your delivery. Right. Giddy up. You got a hitch in your giddy up. No, but I think they're. Yeah. So like, oh, now I'm just going to be thinking about how I talk for the rest of the day. So

it's fine. Every time you go up to hit, you reach base and you don't reach base via hit by pitch. Set that aside. Could you call it perfect? In a way, right? But also, like, come on, you know? So I'm torn between wanting to have appropriate reverence for getting on base and also wanting to go, come on, you know, so I don't know where I'm landing on that one. Yeah, I don't have a big problem with it because your primary goal as an offensive player is not to make an out.

Get on base. Yeah, and so there's an element of perfection to that. And yeah, the corollary of the pitcher perfect game is a pretty good one. We're making up all kinds of words on this one. Yeah, I think it's okay. And I think it's good, especially if you then specify what you mean by the perfection, which I guess the broadcaster did in this case.

If you say perfect night at the plate, three for three with a wok or perfect night with a plate hasn't made an out or whatever, he's been on base every time, then I think you've specified what you mean, what type of perfection. Because if someone just said, so and so had a perfect night,

well, does that mean that he had the Nick Kurtz game, or he just drew four walks and didn't make it out? There's a wide range of outcomes there, so I would have some questions about what that meant exactly. But if you then follow up and say, a perfect night, hasn't made it out, I think that's perfection of a sort

that does not raise my hackles. Yeah, I have no hackles to raise. They are exhausted, the hackles. Peter, Patreon supporter has a deadline specific question. I was listening to Aaron Gleeman on his twins podcast, Gleeman and the Geek, and they were discussing how many scouts were in town To watch potential trade candidates for their team. Maybe they were scouting Chris Paddock. My question is why? Maybe I understand why scouts attend high school college even minor league games

But what exactly can a scout watch at a major league game in this era that they can't necessarily see on the broadcast What statistic can they discover? at a major league game in this era that they can't necessarily see on the broadcast? What statistic can they discover? They can't get on savant? Just curious exactly what they're there for beyond the vibes. I guess the vibes is a part of it. I mean, that's probably sufficient, maybe, just the vibes,

because the one thing you want from scouts that you can't get from the computer is just assessing makeup and effort level and all of that. I guess you could quantify effort level somehow, but, but yeah, vibes clubhouse guy. How's he going to fit in with our team? What are his teammates think of him? Does he look like himself?

What's he doing off the field? Is he a character guy? Are there any concerns, skeletons in the closet? So that sort of personality scouting, I think is still worth sending a scout. I guess you wouldn't necessarily need to send someone to sit in the stands. You could kind of work your contacts

and talk to people in the game or people who played with that guy or coached him or knew him or something. But there's something to be said, probably just for watching, as they say, how that guy goes about his business, you know, how he's preparing, how he's working, how he's taking batting practice, how he looks physically. Some of this you could see with video and data. I take the point of Peter's questions.

There's certainly less necessity than they're used to. Sure. To have a warm body sitting there in the stands. That's why teams do a lot less advanced scouting these days to scout their upcoming opponents. Because you can do sort of video scouting and stat scouting to prepare for that. And teams have access to all sorts of video feeds

that we don't and data sources, or at least processing that we don't. And so they can see things that even we can't with our high def feeds and baseball savant and everything and fan graphs. So, but I think there's probably still some utility, especially if it's like a big deal. Why not? You know, you never know. All you have to do is pick up some little tidbit one time, and it probably justifies the expense of that scout's airfare and accommodations or whatever. And I also think that like, you know, having a, you're right that there are feeds that we, that we probably don't see, but also just having someone sitting behind home with an unobstructed view of the field and without cuts in the

broadcast, also I think has value. You know, you hear about, you know, this is less about a trade for instance, but like you hear, I think there have been multiple examples, even recently of, you know, scouts who advance and they notice something about a delivery that helps them anticipate what pitch is going to come or, you know, they notice a guy is tipping in a particular way or they can note sort of, you know, how base runners sort of behave. I think that there's value to it. You're right that they can see a lot more of that remotely than they've been able to in the past. But I think that some of it is useful as a literal cross check to have a, you know, a person there who's able to take it all in sort of front to back.

So yeah, I'm sure many trades are made now where you did not have eyes on that player in the stance. Like it's probably not questioning the reporting, but I'm sure there are trades that come together quickly where you didn't have someone sitting on that series or that team but if you know in advance and there's a team that's a Clear seller or or or maybe you even have already engaged in talks with that team about a particular player And that's ongoing and you just want to get a look. It's just it's due diligence Maybe it's it's even kind of a cover your ass thing,

or it's just, yeah. Maybe it just makes us feel a little bit better. Maybe there's a little bit of hidebound tradition. This is how it's always done. You're making major moves that affect your team and affect this person's life and everything. And you just want to dot your I's and cross your T's. And in the past, certainly you would have sent someone.

And so now you do just to assuage whatever anxiety you have about that. So I'd be open to the idea that it happens even more than it needs to, perhaps, but there's no great harm in it, no huge opportunity cost probably. So why not, I guess. And often, you know, you're redeploying people who are kind of local anyway, right? Like, it's not, you know, guess what, if a guy, if a team that has guys on it, you want it comes through Arizona, gee, do you think you have some scouts there? You know, like, some of it and not all of those guys are

necessarily are folks are going to be on the pro side, but yeah, like I think the, the cost is probably lower than people are necessarily anticipating. So yeah. And the draft is over now. And of course, pro scouts and amateur scouts are sometimes different squads of scouts, but still, yeah, it's a little less. You guys are going to area codes next week. They're not different scouts. Yeah. It's a little less. The amateur guys are going to area codes next week.

They're not pro scouting right now. They're not doing, they're not cross checking trades. Yeah, it depends. Yeah, there might be times where someone is, it's not quite all hands on deck time of the year, or maybe someone just doesn't have some pressing assignment. And so you just send them. And it could even, it could even be kind of a morale booster

for your scouts. Maybe just not that it's busy work exactly. Or you're like crumpling up their reports and tossing them in the garbage or something. And oh, that's nice. You saw that guy. Great. Good for you. But, but it makes them maybe feel more integrated into operations because scouts, they're on

the road all the time and maybe they're not even seeing that many big league games depending on who the scout is. And so if you can make them feel like they're having a say in some significant decision that affects the major league roster, then that could be good just from a clubhouse chemistry of your front office perspective, perhaps. I think that advanced scouts often have an opportunity to see something that the team wouldn't see if all they were doing was relying on available broadcasts. And so to your point, like, if that happens a couple of times, and it meaningfully informs

your decisions, whether it's how you play a series in the postseason or whether you're in on a guy, I think that it tends to justify itself. Clearly, there are front offices that disagree with me. Yeah, true. But I think they're wrong. Yeah, it feels like things are swinging back around maybe a little bit. At least some teams. It depends.

It's a pendulum. Yeah, it depends who's in charge at any particular time and what the team's fortunes are. Okay, we'll close with a couple of hypotheticals here. One very topical and timely. This is from Ethan who says, in light of the recent Emanuel Class A news, I have a hypothetical scenario.

If you were an overzealous fan of a team with tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to burn, could you intentionally place bets on individual pitches to make it look like a player was involved in suspicious activity? E.g. if you wanted to mess with the guardians, you could place 10K bets on a multiple Emmanuel Classe pitches knowing they'd get flagged

and potentially land him on paid leave right around the trade deadline. Since you weren't doing anything that would actually be illegal or probably violate terms of service, you'd walk away scot-free and eventually the player would be cleared. However, you would be able to briefly make life hell for the team and player.

Is this possible or do I misunderstand the flagging investigation process? Sorry, so you're a person who works for a team and you're placing bets on baseball? No, you're just a fan. even maybe a network of fans and you're saying, let's sabotage this entire team by making it look like there's some suspicious betting activity. We'll just put money on particular pitches for this rival team's pitchers and they will cast suspicion on them and get them taken out of the game.

I mean, I guess you make you contemplate this, but guess you could, but I don't know why you, I mean, I guess I know why you would, but that seems like an expensive way to maybe make someone lose some time. Also, like what a shitty thing to do. You're messing with people's livelihood. Like what's wrong with you? Yeah, definitely just a terrible thing to do. But, uh, I guess if you're willing to be terrible and maybe, maybe this could work if you're mega rich, this is a drop in the bucket for you.

I don't think we've heard the figures, the sums that are potentially involved, whatever triggers these flags. Maybe we have in other situations like this, but in these particular cases, but I'm guessing it's, it's not an enormous fortune because probably the baseline wager on a particular pitch is not huge. And so it would take some massive fortune to flag this as something out of the ordinary. And so if you're mega rich, you just wanna just frame an opposing player, I guess, maybe, maybe you could get away with that. You know, if it were like a crowd funded thing

and there were some kind of campaign, then that would probably get out and someone would talk or it would be publicized or something. And so it would be hard to keep it quiet, I think. If you were a lone actor doing this, maybe, now maybe they would just interview you. Maybe that would be the first stage if they're investigating, huh, who's this better?

Who's placing this huge sum on this thing, and this person doesn't have a record of doing this, then maybe their first call is to you. And I don't know, I guess you don't want to implicate yourself in some sort of skullduggery. So you would just say, I don't know, I just, I had a feeling about this particular pitch. It's my intuition or something.

And then maybe that would maintain your innocence. You're not going to actively implicate the other guy. You're not going to say that you had a tip from the player, but you could probably make it sound as if it kind of, you know, like you had inside info without explicitly stating that. So I don't know, like maybe there's something with known betters or people,

like if it's completely out of character for you, if this is the first time, does that make it more or less suspicious? I could see that going either way. If this is the first time that you've ever bet on something, then that might make it seem even more like you knew something that you shouldn't have. But then again, if you have no prior record of doing bets like this,

then it's not like they're going to know your name or something, like some kind of card counter who, you know, gets escorted out of the casino. Out of the casino. I think that if this happened, and to be clear, I don't think this would happen like some kind of card counter who, you know, gets escorted out of the casino or something. Yeah. I think that if this happened, and to be clear, I don't think this would happen because like, oh my God, now I'm going to stress about it though. This would end those bets. I think this would.

Yeah, I think this would put an end to it. And I, I look, I have been disappointed by Rob Manfred very recently about gambling related concerns. So I don't want to say he's going to do it. But I really do wonder if like after this Guardian situation, if he is pretty inclined to tell the part, you know, their partner sportsbooks like, hey, man, this is this bad business. This is bad news. This is doing this is doing bad stuff, you know? Maybe. Yeah.

Maybe. Yeah. This is disconcertingly plausible, I guess I would say on its face. I guess, but like, I do think that it would be discoverable. Now that doesn't mean that it can't be disruptive in the meantime, but like, I but like I do think that there is some amount of sophistication to their, you know, to their operation in terms of figuring out like whether something that has tripped a, you know, a sensor somewhere is worthy of being escalated.

Because it's not like they, well, this is my assumption. Maybe my understanding of this is wrong. But I don't think that what happens is there are a couple of, there are some bets and then immediate, like there was a gap between when these pitches that Luis Ortiz threw happened and when he was placed on administrative leave, right? So it got to a point in their investigation where they're like, there's enough here that we need to remove this guy from the mound so that if it turns out he was involved in some sort of malfeasance, we can contain, we can staunch the bleeding, as it were. We can stem the tide. I think stemming the tide also means something a little bit different than staunching the bleeding. Right? Like, it's got a different flavor to it. But anyhow, it didn't happen the next day, right? You know, there's a lag in this stuff. So that's part of it. But also, I think they probably get

have to get to a certain point in their investigation before they're like, yeah, we got to do something about this. So I wonder if they would be able to suss out that the player was not involved in this early enough that your efforts would be in vain. And then like, how many times are you able to do this? Like you only have so much money, theoretically, right? Even if you pull stuff. But then if you're pooling your resources in order to manipulate the employability of another, that feels like it has to at least be a civil action of some kind. Again, not a lawyer or a doctor, but that feels like there should be legal consequences

because you're depriving this person of, I mean, potentially of earning potential, potentially of earning potential. What a turn of phrase, Meg. What a good job of podcasting you're doing today. But like, that seems like it should have to come with some sort of at least civil liability. You're like engaged in a criminal conspiracy. Like you're literally doing crimes together. Yeah, trying to ruin this person's reputation.

Then maybe, yeah, I don't know. And maybe the investigation just might not take that long. Because if there's not like a ring, it's not part of some larger probe. It's not reading anywhere. It's just a single person doing it. And then, yeah, if it's a group thing, then the more conspirators you have, the harder it is to keep a lid on what you were doing. So it's hard to maintain a conspiracy.

I do find it interesting and this could no longer be true by the time this episode goes live even, but my, I don't think that we've heard anything more about the class A's potential involvement. Whereas with Ortiz, like the Ortiz news broke that he was being put on paid administrative leave. And then within a couple of hours, ESPN had like figured out what pitches, right? And there had been confirmation of the specific incidents that were being investigated.

And I don't think we've seen anything like that with Closet, which I find interesting. Yeah. Well, hate that we have to think about this or that it even sounds remotely possible. All right. And Trey says, amid a very disappointing brave season, one bright spot lately is that Michael Harris II

has really turned it on in July, despite the worst first half parentheses, 60% or whatever it is. Thank you of his career. I know first half second half splits tend to be either random or attributable to something like an injury or catchers just wearing out by the end of the year. But this has been a pretty consistent pattern now for Harris. Since the beginning of 2022 when he debuted Harris has the biggest difference between his second half WRC Plus and first half WRC Plus, going from 80 in the first half to 141 in the second half.

And he attaches a spreadsheet, which we always appreciate. So I'm sending this email first to shout out Michael Harris II showing life in the bat again, but also to ask a hypothetical, would a team ever consider platooning players at a position based on their first half, second half splits? Instead of using handedness splits, you could play someone who is typically better in the first half of the year for the first half and then replace them with a player who usually comes on hot

in the second half. This would have an additional advantage over the typical handedness platoon in that you wouldn't even have to keep the second guy on the active roster until the time to make the switch, unless you still think they're a viable bench option in their less good half. As an example, let's say you had Yiner Diaz and Will Smith both on your roster

Diaz is a rare catcher with a much better second half WRC plus for his career than first half 132 and 97 respectively whereas Smith drops from 139 in the first half to 116 in the second half You could play Smith at catcher in the first half then swap him out for Diaz in the second half to get consistent 130s WRC plus play out of the catcher in the first half, then swap him out for Diaz in the second half to get consistent 130s WRC plus play out of the catcher position. I know the real answer to this is the first half, second half splits aren't really a repeatable skill, but if you somehow knew that there was an actual reason why certain players exhibited these splits, do you think there's anything to this strategy? So I guess my first thought is, can you imagine going to players and being like, so hey, here's

our plan for you, and then thinking you're going to players and being like, so hey, here's our plan for you. And then thinking you're going to have like good workplace interactions with that person afterwards. Like, there are players who seem to consistently start slow. And I don't know for any given guy, necessarily what to attribute that to setting aside the injury piece. Maybe they're tinkerers and they tinker too much in the spring and they like get out of sorts and then they have to re-tinker over

the course of the first half. It could be any number of things. But I think that part of what this question misses other than the fact that like I think there's just like a kind of very random variation. Oh, hey, extra extra. I got breaking news that's very, very relevant to the trade deadline. Top trade candidate, Eugenio Suarez, received very positive news regarding his hand. Sounds like he's day to day. Very relieved. This is from John Heumann, who is now editorializing. Very relieved. D-backs. Also, Cubs, Reds, Mariners, Tigers, and maybe Phillies, Brewers, and others. But I'm happy for, well, I guess I'm happy that Eugenio doesn't have a broken hand. That seems good, that he doesn't have a broken hand.

Are the D-bags happy? I think the D-bags front office is happy. I think the guys in the dugout, if you ask them to give an honest answer, might admit to being a little sad, actually. Yeah, they could have kept him, maybe. They could have kept him, maybe. Geraldo Perdomo had like really nice things to say about Eohanio the other day. He's like, if you got a hundred guys back, maybe, something like that. I think they're going to be really sad to see Eohanio go, which makes me want him to be traded to a team he's played for before, because then I'll feel like coming home, you know, kind of soften the blow for him personally.

Back to the question, I think that part of the problem is that for some of those guys, I would imagine that the ability to play even over potentially the course of half a season might be really important to their second half performance being what it is, right? Because if the problem is, oh, I have to make some adjustment, something is wrong, my mechanics are weird, my swing is out of sorts, I'm goofing stuff in the field,

like maybe you have to play your way into a better second half, you know? And then, yeah, do you have to pay that player to not play in? Right. Because unless they're truly terrible early in the season, they're not going to just say, yeah, sure, I'll just come in. Right.

After the last couple months of the season. No problem. So you'd have to pay them to sit and not play. And so you're going to have to, essentially have to pay an extra player even if they're not on your roster. Yeah, I don't know how that's going to work exactly. But the union would be like you're you're messing with guy service time. Oh, yeah. Right.

You're preventing them from reaching free agency. You're preventing them from reaching 10 years in the majors, which is like a huge accomplishment. So like there are a number of interested parties that would be like, get tossed. And imagine how upset the good quote unquote first half guy is gonna be when you say, all right, thanks for your contribution. That's it for you for this season. Even if they have this track record

of sucking in the second half, they're not gonna believe that that's the, they're gonna say, no, this time I'm gonna be good. You gotta keep putting me out there. And what's that going to do to your clubhouse when this guy who's been good is just getting jettisoned and replaced by a second half ringer. So yeah, that's probably unworkable for a number of reasons.

And yeah, I don't think that there is really such a thing as that drastic a career split like that. If I'm stat-heading accurately on the fly, if I look for like first half, second half, and just say, okay, difference between second half OPS, I have to use these terms because this is what baseball reference does, and overall OPS for the season, the biggest difference is if I set a minimum of, let's say, 1,500 plate appearances in the second half.

Biggest difference in either direction is about 85 points of OPS. Difference between the in-split OPS and the overall, and I'll link to those lists if you're interested, but that's sizable, but it's not so big that most guys are going to be totally unplayable. And that's sizable, but it's not so big that most guys are going to be like totally unplayable. And I guess the question part of the condition was like, well, you know, for somehow a lot of these questions, it's yes, we could just dismiss it and say, well, you'd never believe it. And you'd never know in small sample, but it's kind of okay. But what if

you did? What if somehow you had perfect knowledge that this guy was a first half guy and that guy was a second half guy. I guess if that were known somehow and set in stone and everyone was aware of it, including the players, then maybe, but I, it's hard to come up with scenario where that's actually the case. So yeah. All right. Finally, this one comes from Eric. Last hypothetical.

He says, we have discussed many times the relative lack of excitement when hitters all strike out or occasionally hit it out. One major problem is that a fly ball that isn't over the wall is so frequently an out. And that is increasingly a problem or increasingly a thing. The fly ball, babbip, down, down, down. My solution at the release of every pitch,

all three outfielders must be lying prone. Or we could give them tiny kindergarten chairs, but they might trip on them. This would turn so many formerly garden variety fly balls into web gems shoestring catches or heart pounding doubles or triples, I cannot imagine that anything could be better. So they have to lie down and then they have to get up. No, this would be so terrible. People should appreciate defense more. I mean, like I get it.

You need some balls in play. You need some, you need some dingers. You need, you need the crack of the bat. You need base running, but also people should like defense more. Defense is great. Defense is fun. Like you would, I don't know that you would read it as a web gem, even if the guy did an amazing thing. I think you'd be like, why do we have these goofy little chairs out there?

This feels like an un... It also, to offer a more serious answer, when we think about how we're balancing the scales between hitting and pitching, you want it to feel like you're not giving too big an advantage to any one side. And I'm obviously lumping defense and fielding in with pitching here. And this feels like it's out of sorts. It's cattywampus. I don't mind hitters being able to use a trajectory machine to try to prepare against pitching because well, for one thing, pitchers get to prepare against hitters and pitchers get

to decide what pitch they're going to throw. And so like you feel like things are sort of in balance with one another. And the reason we want things in balance is because you don't want to go into any particular situation in a game and feel like you really definitively know the outcome. You want the element of surprise. I am not confident that everyone's getting up for... Imagine putting Kyle Schwab on a tiny chair in the outfield and then saying, well, first of all, the tiny chair would make him look much older, more so than the gray, because

you're like, he's such a big man. That's such a tiny chair, not an offensive... Maybe make a rocking chair too, just to add to the gray, because you're like, she's such a big man, that's such a tiny chair, not an offensive. Maybe make it a rocking chair too, just to add to the effect. There you go, not offensive lineman big, but a big man nonetheless. And then, you end up with things all out of sorts. You feel like things are not balanced.

That would be bad. Yep, and people have come up with more realistic, perhaps more easily persuadable hypotheticals about this. I have written and talked about widening the foul lines just to try to make the square footage of the fields better or you know, you could move where the plate is positioned basically so that outfielders have more ground to cover. And people have talked about drawing lines in the field of some sort. So you have to stand here.

You can slice. Yeah. Some sort of something like that, which I, I'm not at the point of, of wanting that I just aesthetically, and also I just, I don't like the heavy handedness of telling people where they can and can't stand on the field, but the positioning cards. Yeah. Oh, that, yeah, I would do away with those or the, yeah, before I would do

something drastic like this and just see if that has any effect. But yeah, I, I acknowledge that it's potentially a problem, even if you appreciate outfield defense, a lot of it is, is the positioning more so, you know, it's partly that the fielders, they cover more ground and everything, but it's also that they're just standing in a better place. And that's visually not necessarily more interesting. It's not producing more exciting plays. It's just that you had less far to go.

So yeah, outfielders are getting more athletic. It's probably also that hitters are swinging for the fences. So when they just missed, they get under one. It's an easier fly ball to catch. Russell Carlton has written about this and it's a bit of both, but I do think just outfield defense has gotten better and that is contributing a ton to the decrease

in batting average and MLB was hyper fixating on the infield shift and not really focusing on the outfield shifting or shading. So it's a thing, but making them lie making them lie down as funny as the images, I think that that's a non-starter for me. Yeah. Cause the other thing about it is like, it's bad from an aesthetic perspective for so many reasons, but one that is maybe you haven't thought of, you know,

in all the time that you've been thinking about, like, what would baseball be like if all the guys were laying down? One of the accusations that gets leveled at baseball is that, like, it's not a particularly athletic sport, right? Because it's just a bunch of guys standing around and you know what's not going to beat that rap if they're actually lying down. Bunch of guys lying around instead. Yeah. Yeah. You can't be doing that. People are going to make fun of you, you know? Not beating the allegations. Alright, enjoy your deadlines.

Everyone will be back to talk about everything that goes down or doesn't. Alright, just putting it out there, by the way, that Rich Hill has not played for Atlanta. They're picking up Fetty, they're picking up Carrasco, a whole rotations worth of starters on the IL. Get him that 15th team. The other good news, I guess, is that even if he doesn't make it back to the majors this season, he has postponed the point where people who are older than Justin Verlander but younger than Rich Hill have to reckon with the fact that there's no big leaguer this season who is older than they are.

He's not active right now, but he's active this season, and that counts. That extends until 2026. Speaking of Fetty, he took the loss against Kansas City on Tuesday, and in that game, Royals pitcher Angel Zarpa committed a pitch clock violation, the Royals first of the season. So perfect pitch clock performance eludes Kansas City. And here's a late breaking email question from Patreon supporter Ruhi. Sir Anthony Dominguez was traded from Baltimore to Toronto

between the first and second games of a doubleheader between those two teams on Tuesday, and he pitched in game two. Has this ever happened? The mid-doubleheader swap specifically. Indeed it has. On May 30th, 1922, Cardinals and Cubs outfielders Cliff Heathcote and Max Flack were traded for each other. Between games of a doubleheader, I believe it was a morning afternoon doubleheader. Evidently managers Bill Kilifer and Branch Ricky went out to lunch between games and decided to trade outfielders who did play in both games.

There's just been so much baseball that there's almost always a precedent. Also, since we closed with a question about Babbitt and outfielders, I'll answer one more about an outfielders Babbitt. This is from Tanner, Patreon supporter, who said early last week, "'Why does no one care about Aaron Judge's Babbip?'

All the discussion I can recall of his season is how incredibly it started. Why isn't he being walked more? And of course, isn't it crazy that he's actually improving upon an 11-war season? He's now slumped a bit, so most of his numbers this year are very similar to last year's,

with one huge exception, his 425 Babbip. Obviously he hits the ball super hard, but that's 60 points above his incredible season last year. If, say, Ketelmarte were in an MVP race with such a babbip, that would be the first thing we would mention about his performance. But not for Judge. What gives? Well, a few things come to mind. For one, his babbip is down to a measly 409 now. For another, it's not as if no one has noted this. I remember a Mike Petriello piece from late May about how Judge was aiming for Babe Ruth's record for a 467 Babbitt, the highest in live ball era history. Not gonna get there.

But also it's that he's sort of earned it. So for one, he does have a 351 career Babbitt. So 409 is not that wildly out of line. And as Tanner said, he does crush the ball. career BABIP, so 409 is not that wildly out of line. And as Tanner said, he does crush the ball. If I am baseball savanting correctly, Judge actually has a 392 expected BABIP, or expected batting average on balls in play. So yeah, he's probably gotten a little lucky, but not that lucky.

And that's the thing about batter BABIPs, they're much more in the player's control than pitcher BABIPs. And so when a pitcher has an extraordinarily low Bbip, there's probably a lot of luck slash defensive support that went into that. And with a batter, there can certainly be some luck or bad defense, but it is much more dependent on the batter and on how hard and where they hit the ball. It's more of a skill than a fluke. There are certainly times when we point out that someone has a super high inflated

BABIP and that that's probably going to regress and their overall stats along with it. But yeah, it really is just that Aaron Judge has completely pulverized the ball this year, and so he actually kind of deserves to have close to a 400 BABIP hard as that is to believe. But if he wins a batting title and he is leading the major leagues in batting average, which he's never done before, then that would certainly be cited as a contributing cause. I guess it's also that we tend to fixate on Babbitt when someone is having an out-of-nowhere great year, whereas Aaron Judge is just great, no one questions that he's great. So yes, you might be hitting a bit over his head, high as his head is, but no one's going

to call him a Babbitt mirage or suggest that the success is purely luck-based. At the beginning of July, Dan Simborski did an expected stats update using his version of expected stats, and he did find that Judge's OPS at the time was about 140 points over his quote-unquote deserved OPS, and a lot of that was Babbitt-based. Dan had his Babbitt then, which was 432, being 60 points higher than his expected or deserved babbip. But as Dan noted in that piece, he did have the highest expected or deserved babbip at the time.

So he was still the best in that category. Just not quite that good. You can support Effectively Wild on Patreon 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 ad-free and get yourself access to some perks as have the following five listeners Matthew Neamer, Peter Ermston, Marvin Dolan,

Tom Wright, and Corinne Landry. Thanks to all of you. Patreon perks include access to the Effectively Wild Discord group for patrons only, monthly bonus episodes, playoff live streams, prioritized email answers, personal messages, bonus episodes, playoff live streams, prioritized email answers, personal messages, autograph books, discounts on merch and ad-free FanCrafts memberships, and so much more, check out all the offerings at patreon.com slash effectively wild. If you are a Patreon supporter, you can message us through the Patreon site. If not, you can contact us via email, send your questions, comments, intro and outro themes to podcast.fancrafts.com. You can rate, review, and subscribe to Effectively Wild on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube Music, et cetera.

You can join our Facebook group at facebook.com slash groups 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 Crafts or the episode description in your podcast app for links to the stories and stats we cited today. Thanks to Shane McKeon

for his editing and production assistance. We'll be back with one more episode later this week. Talk to you then. If baseball were different, how different would it be? And if this thought haunts your dreams, well stick around and see what Ben and Meg have to say. Philosophically and pedantically, it's effectively wild. Effectively wild!