Effectively Wild: A FanGraphs Baseball Podcast - Effectively Wild Episode 2358: Is That a Pancake in Your Pocket, or Are You Just Happy to See Me?

Episode Date: August 8, 2025

Ben Lindbergh and Meg Rowley banter about the Marlins’ winning record against the Yankees, Ty Cobb and Kyle Stowers, the Blue Jays’ demolition of the Rockies, pocket pancakes, and more. Then (38:19) they answer listener emails about a CBT exemption for World Series winners, celebrations in the pitch clock era, nonpartisan bullpens, a humorous shirsey, […]

Take me to the diamond Lead me through the turnstile Shower me with data That I never thought to compile Now we freely now a scorecard With a cracker jacket of smile Hello and welcome to episode 2358 of Effectively Wild. A Fangraphs Baseball podcast brought to you by our Patreon supporters.

I'm Meg Raleigh of Fangraphs and I am joined as always. Well, almost as always, I was so confident, you know? I was just like, oh, this is smooth. Another great example of one take Meg. And then I missed that one episode recently. it just threw you off. It can't be as always, you know. It's almost as always.

It's, you know, it's effectively as always. It's meaningfully as always, but it is not literally as always. But I am joined, as I so often am, by Ben Lindberg of the Ringer. Ben, how are you? I'm doing okay. Welcome to effectively as always. As always. As always.

Podcasts from fancress. Well, I'm doing fine. And we have an entertaining show for you all today. We hope. I guess we can't promise that. We haven't done it yet. We haven't done it yet. We're projecting it to be entertaining, just on past performance and topics to discuss mostly.

We'll be doing some emails, including some emails that prompted stat blasts. I did have three fun facts, or I guess three clusters of fun facts that I would like to discuss, including two that I meant to discuss on previous pods but forgot to, one of which was the Yankees Marlins. fun fact that came out of the Marlins' recent sweep of the Yankees, and we talked about both of those teams last time, and so I meant to mention it, but it slipped my mind. The Marlins are the only team that has a winning career record against the Yankees after this sweep, which put them ahead. It is funny. And yes, it does require including postseason play, which might sound like sort of a cheat, but it's not really because I guess all the other teams, they still don't have a winning record against the Yankees in the postseason. Yankees have tended to win a lot in

the postseason and the regular season historically. So the Marlins, by sweeping the Yankees and winning on Sunday 7 to 3, they are now 25 and 24 all time versus the Yankees, postseason included. They're the only MLB team with a winning record against the Yankees. And this tickles me. this amuses me you can't predict baseball i guess um i find that delightful it's especially funny given how much back and forth there has been in the recent years from a front office perspective i guess mostly in one direction but there has there has been a good bit of yankee's DNA that has found its way into the the marlins organization over the last couple of years some of that dna has since been excised, but it was there for a while. So that's sort of a funny little twist to it also.

And now, you know, run by a former division rival. So yes, got to take it to them, I suppose. And it's surprising because if you go back to 1993, as the Marlins history does, they are 25th in wins in majors over that span. And so you wouldn't expect the Marlins of all teams to be the one with a winning record against the mighty Yankees who themselves have had a winning record every year during the existence of the Marlins, which is also a fun fact if you're a Yankees fan, though they don't seem to be having that much fun lately.

An unfun fact for the rest of the league and every other fan base. But it's obviously a product of small sample. We're talking fewer than 49 games here. The other reason I guess it's amusing is that if you're a Yankees hater, as so many people are, then it sort of twists the knife because it reminds people of the 2003 World Series

and Marwan's victory over the Yankees in that series. Yeah. And so that's just another little dig you can get in at Yankees fans by remembering them of that time. Though, I've got to say, as a former Yankees fan and someone who was a hardcore Yankees fan at that time in 2003, that particular loss didn't bother me that much. And maybe you could say, oh, well, you were spoiled because you won in 96 and 98 and 99 and 2000 and all the rest. But it was really more that after the 2003 ALCS, after that triumph, it just, it felt like an afterthought, which sounds like a very conceited Yankees fan thing to say that, like, the real world series was the ALCS. But that's what it felt like after that thing went to seven games.

and you had the Aaron Boone game or the Pedro game or the Grady Little game. I guess it can go by more than one name. And I was at that game, which is just one of the greatest memories of my life, let alone my life as a baseball fan. And so, yeah, it would have been nice to also beat the Marlins. But it was just like, you know, we won the Real World Series. Sorry, Marlins fans. What could be more condescending than saying, oh, yeah, I guess you beat us in that World Series. But it doesn't quite count.

feel like yesterday when we talked about the plight of the Yankees, the consternation that their fans are feeling, the adject terror at the possibility of missing the postseason, I feel like I was, I was generous, you know, I was kind to them. I didn't, I didn't say, you bunch of spoiled, spoileds, how dare you feel anything but joy at the long and storied history of your favorite franchise? I didn't do any of that nonsense. I was kind. I was, I was sensitive. I listened to the concerns, and I tried to address those concerns in good faith, and I do not feel like my good faith was rewarded because at the beginning of your statement, I was like going to be, I was, I was going to joke about how I never call Yankees fans spoiled. And by the end of it, I wanted to twist the knife. How dare.

Ridiculous. I'm glad you have good memories of a nice thing. You know, one of the many nice things you've been able to experience as a fan. of that franchise. Yes. Individual losses in that series still pained me. Game four, which was one of Joe Torrey's notorious managerial miscues, I would say, the Jeff Weaver game when Jeff Weaver was used in extra innings after not having

pitched forever and he was saving Mariano Rivera was your classic, just can't use a closer and a tie game on the road sort of situation, which always drove me to distraction. Sure. That was bad, and him being used in that high-leveraged spot after such a long layoff, it's sort of a prefigured, foreshadowed the Nestor Cortez game of Aaron Boone's last year, I would say. So that wrinkles a little bit. Sure. Yeah, it's partly just the triumph of the 2003 LCS.

And then also, I think, the heartbreak of the 2001 World Series. And yes, I know world's smallest violins are playing. that the Yankees didn't win yet another consecutive World Series. But that was rough. That was rough for Young Bend. And so that one, it just didn't quite compare. Like, by 2003, I was used to the idea. I had resigned myself to my team not winning the World Series every year

because we lost in 2001 and then 2002 didn't get close. And so I'd kind of come to terms with the way that the rest of you live, you know, just not expecting a championship every season. And so I had just acclimated to it. Yeah. You know what that's like. Wow. You know, I guess I got to be meaner about the Jets.

It won't bother you. No, that'll just be. This is the thing. Water off a duck's back. I don't, first of all, I don't feel any actual need to stick it to you. Because, you know, we're friends. We're co-hosts. I have such respect for you, Ben.

I know that also it's not like an emotional. resonant fandom for you anymore, as you just noted, like, you're not a football fan in any kind of a meaningful way. And so if I take barbs at you, if I, if I send Barb's your direction, if I jab, I'm just going to end up whacking our devoted listeners who are meant to come here for joy and whimsy amusement and find themselves being reminded that the Jets are cursed by God. You know, that's like, you got to, you got to grapple with that if you're going to embrace that fandom. Like, I'm not a prone to supernatural belief, but I do, I do think that there may be a divine being specifically to curse the Jets, you know. Probably.

Even if I were more of a football fan, I probably wouldn't be a Jets fan because it just seems to go Mets Jets, Yankees, Giants, or I could go Bills, who knows. If I were a Bills fan, then I'd have plenty of hard. break in close calls, but... Yes, you would. That is not the case. But greater possibility for joy in the current moment than with either of those other franchises. Yes.

You can't needle me really on the basis of sports heartbreak because I just, I've had so little of it other than 2001, which is, wow, you lost in Game 7 of the World Series, really rough. It was, but I know, but also we've had that conversation. Yeah, like, which is more emotionally devastating, like getting so close and then failing or never getting close. They're both devastating in their own special way. Can offer an opinion on that, but, you know, yeah. So other than that, I kind of just my team won all the time and then I sort of stopped being a fan of a particular team and then don't really have fandoms and other sports that I feel that strongly about.

So other than 2001, and I guess the Sonoma Stompers' 2015 championship game, maybe, but even that worked out, narratively speaking, for the book, spoilers. I won't give away what happened there for anyone who hasn't read the only rule, but you could infer. But, yeah, you, on the other hand, if I tried to needle you, it would come off as too cruel. And occasionally, occasionally I will perhaps border on that. I will rag you a little bit. but yeah really like it's just it's it's it's too cruel to remind a mariners fan of what you've all been through yeah it's not it wouldn't be considered the the nicest move i have a friend whose father was a bill's fan uh born and raised in the brocks but he was a bills fan because he's like they're

the only new york football team that plays in new york so i'm a i'm a bills fan he was like the just and the giants play in new jersey they're not the new york anything so And I was like, you know what, that's hard to argue, you know, as a as a true fact, it doesn't, I think, preclude fandom of those teams. But, yeah, you're right. They do not currently play in the state of New York. So New York what's? New York nothing's tell you what. The other fun fact that I meant to mention, and this was almost a month ago, this was in mid-July.

And do you remember Kyle Stowers before Nick Kurtz went off, Kyle Stowers went off? He's kind of going off. He's been great. But on July 18th, the Marlins' PR account on Twitter, which I guess has had uncommonly good news to share of late, said that since 1901, two players in Major League Baseball have recorded at least eight hits, five home runs, and 11 runs batted in a two-game span. And one was Kyle Stowers, July 13th and 18th, 2025. I guess it wasn't – oh, that was book-ending the All-Star break.

I suppose. That's why there was a gap there. Gotcha. And Ty Cobb, May 5th to 6th, 1925. So good baseball stats company to be in, if you're Kyle Stowers. But I saw a lot of replies to that saying, Ty Cobb was the other guy who went off and hit for all this power and all those home runs in a two-game span. And people were very surprised.

And when I saw that, I immediately knew what span that had to be because it's one of my favorite little baseball anecdotes very much in the mold of the Eitro could have hit home runs if he had wanted to. Okay. Sort of the same thing is said about Ty Cobb. And I guess those guys had some comparable aspects of their on-field performance. So Ty Cobb people think of him as sort of a slap hitter, not a power hitter. Yeah.

And like a lot of things about Ty Cobb, that's kind of a distortion of the truth because obviously he played a lot of his career in the deadball era. And so, yes, if you look back now, he didn't have huge home run totals. He's most known for his high batting averages and for his high stolen base totals. And also a bunch of stuff that wasn't actually true about him, a lot of it that appeared in a pretty bogus biography. But if you look back and era adjust and compare to the rest of the league, he actually did hit for a fair amount of power. And part of that was like, well, you have a high slugging percentage if you're batting 380 or 19 or whatever. But even on an isolated power basis because he had a lot of extra base hits.

And part of that was that he would triple a lot and he would have inside the park home runs. And so that was sort of speed-based power. But it wasn't entirely that. So in 1909, he actually led the major leagues in home runs. He had nine. And so to modern eyes, you look at that, and it sounds very unimpressive. But by the standards of the day, it was pretty good. Now, I believe all nine of his home runs that year were inside the parkers.

But that was not really typical for him. Aside from 1909, he hit plenty of over-the-fence home runs also. So he did have over-the-fence power. And he was known as someone who, like, could hit the ball really hard. if he did swing for the fences, could clear them very much like the legend of Itchro and his batting practice displays and all that. And he did hit some tape measure shots, a Cobb, that is, and some of his contemporaries attested to his clout, to his power. But there was this one really notable incident, which happened in 1925, that reinforces this idea that he could have hit for much more power. if he had wanted to, so May 1925 in St. Louis. And he was quoted, I think sometimes by contemporaries

and sometimes after the fact, he was a little resentful of Babe Ruth later in Ty Cobb's career because suddenly the long ball was in vogue. Sure. And Cobb was much more about, quote-unquote, scientific hitting and place hitting and bunting and that sort of thing and picking your spots to swing for the fences, perhaps, but not do it. it all the time. I guess he considered it a less subtle version of the game maybe. You still hear that refrain today sometimes. So the story goes that he was sort of fed up with hearing nonstop about Babe Ruth and how many home runs he hit. And so he took it upon himself to show that he could do that if he wanted to. He just didn't want to. So it was in St. Louis.

Evidently, there was a breeze blowing out to write, which may have had something to do with this too, but supposedly he said he informed the press before the fact, I'll show you something today. I'm going for home runs for the first time in my career. And that day, he hit three home runs. Oh, my gosh. So the classic home run prediction, which tied an A.L. record at the time. And also hit a deep double to right center and then hit two more home runs the next day with another ball that he hit to the wall and then came within a foot of another home run the next

game that landed for a double. And so he had five home runs in consecutive games, and they were all out of the park. And that tied a major league record. And so this was sort of, okay, I showed you. And then he just went back to being Ty Cobb again. And this was like late in his career, 1925, he was, that was his age 38 season. Yeah. He was still immensely productive at that point.

So I've always loved that story of just like, oh, yeah, I'll show. show you it. It's kind of like the story about how Barry Bonds felt overlooked because like Big Mac and Sosa were getting all the accolades. And so the story goes, that was something that prompted him to start taking PEDs so that he could compete with the power displays. It's kind of like that. Except I guess PEDs weren't really available. And also he didn't actually want to be this kind of hitter. And so he just he just flexed for like two days and was like, see, Nothing to it. No sweat. So Ty Cobb and Kyle Sowers. So I've always loved that legend. I wouldn't be surprised if it's part apocryphal like so many things about Cobb. Did he actually say that? I haven't gone back to see if that was like reported at the time or was a recollection after the fact. Yeah. Or was it, you know, like a lot of tall tales in baseball, was it sort of exaggerated somewhat? But I like the story. And I like that tantalizing idea that non-power hitters could have been power. And maybe there's, because like these guys, Etro, Cobb, they had incredible bat control, obviously, and they could kind of put it where they wanted to put it. And that was sort of an overlook thing, I think, about the so-called flyball revolution and the uppercut swings and all that stuff is that the guys who really broke out were like Justin Turner and J.D. Martinez. And these guys could put the bat on the ball, and they were really skilled, and then they kind of unlocked this latent power potential that they had.

But it wasn't like they had no actual ability before that. They just sort of channeled it in a different direction. So as soon as I saw that, Kyle Sauer's fun fact, I thought, no, this is actually a Thai Cobb fun fact in one of the funest facts, I think, about baseball. The funnest of facts. How credible do you find that, or the legend of vitro. for that matter. I'll say this. I have a hard time believing that there are things that had he put his mind to it, Ichiro couldn't have done. I know. It's just, and I, I want to acknowledge the obvious reasons for doubt. He's a skinny little thing, you know, wiry, you know, muscular in shape.

Someone who seemingly to this day takes a great deal of pride and his physicality takes tremendous care of himself. And it's not like there was no power in there. But you get why people were like, that's not an obvious slugger. But again, hard to have grown up around the myth of Ichiro, around the hard work that was clearly present every time he took the field. You know, he talked about that in his Hall of Fame speech and not think, like, well, if you had really wanted to, he probably could have done it.

I don't know. I'm torn between what my rational mind tells me, which is, sure, he probably, the real answer is that he probably could have hit for more power. Could he have been like a slugger? Right. Maybe, maybe not, not without a pretty profound change to his approach to probably to his physicality. But could he have hit for more power than he did over the course of his career? Maybe without altering all that that much. I think. I would buy it. I never know what to think about stories about Ty Cobb, to your point. Like, I'm just so skeptical of handed down wisdom around him because so much, to your point, of his story is just seemingly apocryphal. And so absent, like, contemporaneous accounts of any aspect of his life, I'm just like, I don't know, we probably have, like, a handle on 30 to 40% of it when it comes right down to it. And that's, maybe that's being a little rude about the work that has been done to try to fill in the historical record. Because obviously people are quite motivated to know the truth of the man.

Yeah. Both for, because of his place in the history of the game and because there has been so much Hocum. Yes. Yes. I'm sounding, you know, inappropriately folksy, annoyingly foxy. Hocom is a fun word to say, though. Hocom. Yes, it is.

Hocom. Yeah. Holcomb horns. Yeah. Al Stump really did a number on Cobb's reputation. He was, and then the Cobb movie, which reinforced a lot of that stump mythology that went on there. But there was a good biography by Charles Learson about a decade ago called Ty Cobb, A Terrible Beauty, that corrected the record about a lot of that stuff. I'm pretty sure I talked to Charles on the Ringer MLB show, RIP, not on Effectively Wild, but I will link to that. if I can find it. But, yeah, it was, let's see, I have the stats here. So Cobb not only led the majors in home runs in 1909.

He finished runner-up or tied for runner-up in the AL in home runs on three occasions, aside from 1909, seven times in the top five, 11 times in the top 10. And one of his top 10 finishes was in 1921, which was in the live ball era. And he even out-homered entire teams at top. as Ruth is famous for doing. So 46 of his 117 career home runs were inside the park. So most of them were outside the park or at least outside the fence, I suppose.

This is according to a 2006 Sabre Baseball Research Journal piece. So for all I know, the numbers have been updated. But, yeah, I wrote something to that effect after Echro retired for the ringer about that legend and could he have done it and would he have been better. And I think my conclusion was basically that, yeah, you could always make some sort of trade-off if you wanted to be, if you're a high-average hitter and you want to be an all-or-nothing hitter, you could, but should you? And if you're as good as those guys were, then you'd have to be really, really good at the alternate approach to be better, and especially in Cobb's case because relative to his leagues, like he was a way better hitter even than Yitra was. sure so it like now if he could just hit three home runs on command at any time then then sure he should have done that yeah yeah but but whether that was windated or lucky or whatever or who knows maybe he happened to do that and then claimed that he did it on purpose or i don't know but yeah if you can do that that reliably then you absolutely should have done that i'm skeptical of that at least and so if you can make some sort of trade off where, okay, you're a 366 lifetime hitter. Well, if you dial that down and, okay, you say, I'm going to go for power and but now

I'll only be a 300 hitter, which means that you're going to be on base a lot less. And so how many more home runs would you have to hit to make that calculus worth it? Because there are people who've done the math in like era adjusted Cobb's career home run total, which was 117 and said, well, that's the equivalent of like 400 something or 500-something if you sort of era adjust to the power of the day. So it's a fun, what-if. It's a nice little alternate history scenario. I would like to know if we could somehow replay his career and just have him take the 1925 approach. He wasn't even in his physical prime at that point, just have him do his whole career over again, and we'll see which one turns out to be better.

That'd be a fun experiment to run somehow. I mostly, I find the ECHIRO conversation, So fascinating. I mean, like, there's a reason we had it. But especially now in the current era and with the current sort of predominant style of hitting that we have, I find myself more and more grateful for having witnessed his career exactly how it played out now than I did even at the time. And I appreciated the hell out of it at the time just because it is so, it is so distinct. from what we see today. So if you have the ability to time travel each year old, go do other stuff, you know? Like, you don't need to change anything about your career. Yeah, true. We had plenty of sluggers already.

And we had a Babe Ruth. We have plenty now. Yeah, exactly. So we don't need everyone to be the same. We don't want everyone to be the same. No. And I think that Cobb even acknowledged that had he tried to do this, let's see, I have a quote here.

this was from the early 1920s, he said, if I had set out to be a home run hitter, I am confident that in a good season I could have made between 20 and 30 home runs. True, I couldn't hope to challenge Babe Ruth in his specialty, but I do feel that I could have made an impressive number of homers if I had set out with that end in view. My idea of a genuine hitter is a hitter who can bunt,

who can place his hits, and who, when the need arises, can slug. And teams today would say, well, the need always, There's always, like, there's, I know that we, you know, will joke when broadcasters seriously invoke the notion of a home run as a rally killer, but truly not really a bad time to hit one of those, you know? You could just, you're just doing fine if you do it. It's just every opportunity you get, really. Yeah. So his head wasn't too big. He didn't have too inflated a sense of his own power potential.

He said the babe would be better. He just, he could have been half a babe maybe, perhaps home run hitting wise. But, yeah, there are all kinds of quotes in this Sabre story from people at the time saying, oh, baseball is boring now because it's just home runs. And what about base stealing? What about defense, et cetera? It's just, you know, same as it ever was. This was a century ago. People still say the same stuff today.

Anyway, the last little cluster of fun facts pertains to the trouncing that the Toronto Blue Jays just delivered to the Colorado Rockies. My goodness. Yeah. So I let off the last episode by referring to a great Rockies comeback over the Pirates, but there was no coming back in this just completed series against the Blue Jays who beat the Rockies 15 to 1, 10 to 4, and 20 to 1. Wow. So they took it easy on them in that middle game, a mere 10 to 4 victory. But other than that, man, that's what is that?

It's just 55 to 6. Yeah. That's not close. Man. So all kinds of fun facts came out of this, of course. Yeah. And we got a question from listener Lee in Montreal who said, I'm one of the many Jays fans who enjoyed watching them outscore the Rockies. 45 to 5.

Did I just completely screw up that math? I guess maybe, yeah, probably 45 to 5. I was not even close, as were the Rockies. compared to the Blue J scores. To temper my excitement, can you put this in perspective? Everyone beats the Rockies, but who has beaten the Rockies best or worst? Run differential seems like the easiest metric for this, but can you think of others? So, yeah, this was such a total trouncing that we don't even have to just make it specific to the Rockies.

Because, I mean, this was one of the worst defeats of all time, really, than any team has suffered. and Michael Mountain, Patreon supporter, Discord group mod, he was doing some stat blasting about this and noted that the Rockies set the integration era record for the biggest run differential in a three-game series. They tied the integration era record for biggest run differential in a series of any length. Wow.

The 2007 Red Sox had a plus 39 in a four-game set against the White Sox, but there was a double header in the midst of that. By the way, I meant to say that maybe Red Sox, they could have said the same thing, the Red Sox fans, in 2004, when, of course, they came back from the defeat of the 2003 ALCS to deliver just as sound and demoralizing a drubbing to the Yankees after going down three-nothing. And that may have felt like a victory in itself.

But because they were the Red Sox and they had the curse and the drought and all that, they did still have to complete the sweep of St. Louis in that World Series, even though that series felt like a letdown because it just wasn't compared yeah yeah it wasn't very dramatic right but they actually did have to win that one because of the franchise history is like if they had they had beaten the yankees that would have been great that would have been a huge victory in itself but if they had then fallen to the cardinals then there still would have been a sense of unfinished business so they they had to take care of that business which

they did to their credit so michael can Continues, 1950, the Red Sox had a plus 36 series against the Browns, June 7th to 9th. That was the previous integration era record for three games. 2010, the Brewers had a plus 35 against the Pirates, April 20th to 22nd. That was the previous 21st century record for three games. And there was, I guess, the all-time, at least ALNL record, was the 1876 Cubs put up a plus 45 in three games against the Louisville Grays. but this was a fertile territory for fun facts just all over the Internet. So MLB.com had several with an assist from the Eli Sports Bureau.

So the Blue Jays' 63 hits in this series were the most by a single team in the modern era since 1901. Toronto outscored Colorado, 45 to 6. This is the second largest run differential between teams in a three-game series since 2001. So that's going back to modern era as opposed to the integration era, 47 on that Michael did. It's just one shy of the modern era record of 40 set by the Brooklyn Superbas who were superb against the Cincinnati Reds

124 years ago. Toronto's 45 runs were the most scored by a major league team in a three-game series since the 2019 Cubs scored 47 against the pirates. And then the 39 run differential, sixth highest in a series of three games or fewer in an MNLB history.

the 1901 Brooklyn Superba series from above was the last instance of a differential of 40 or more runs in a three-game series and Toronto had 40 more hits than Colorado, which is the biggest hit differential in a three-game series since 1900. This was just so convincing a victory that it feels like it should carry over somehow to me.

It should be worth more than three wins. I don't know exactly how, Because we've answered hypotheticals about, like, what if... How would you do it? Yeah, what if series were decided by run differential, or what if run differential mattered long term more than it does for like a tiebreaker effect? But yeah, this just, it feels like it should be double, like, bonus or demerits for the Rockies or something. And Warren Schaefer, the interim manager of the Rockies, what else is he going to say?

But it was just kind of a boilerplate quote, it's a really good team that puts the ball in play a ton that's what they do it's why they're on top of the American League so you've got to tip your hat to them and we've got to make

better pitches yeah I would say so that would help I guess that's not untrue he's not wrong yeah it's a little bit of an understatement yeah we might argue that that was perhaps

not inclusive of all the things they have to do differently it's funny because on the one hand I agree with you like maybe it should count for more but also like they did do that to the Rockies so maybe maybe it balances you know um it was a drubbing an undisputed drubbing um no other way to characterize it but as a drubbing but also drumming on the Rockies so maybe it you know in in the grand scheme it really is just three wins worth of stuff yeah and the Rockies to their slight credit have been less than

terrible of late they've really they've fallen off the pace of being the worst of all time oh yeah so that's mildly disappointing for non-rocky's fans i suppose they're still drawing improbably well for a truly terrible team but now i don't know maybe maybe this blue jays series has gotten them back on track in terms of chasing history here you got to look if you're them you got to take the wins you can even if you've just been like thoroughly trounced in an embarrassing way, right? You have to sit there and go, look, we're not, we're not going to be memorable in the way we worried we were going to be memorable at the start of the season.

Still not good to be very clear, but like, but, but hardly the worst thing, you know, that's something to not be the worst thing. It is. It is. You know, there's going to come a time, and it'll be in relatively short order, shockingly, where we won't really remember much about their season at all. You know, if you don't make the history books, you get to enjoy the grace of forgetting in a way that you wouldn't if you were in as literally the worst team. So I think good for them, you know. Yeah.

How much do we talk about or think about the 20, 23? A's, for instance, these days. And that was only two years ago. Right. And they were 50 and 112. And at one point, it looked like they would be worse than that and that they'd be in contention for worst of all time. But then they pulled out of the nosedive slightly enough to just not be the worst. And then they were eclipsed by the White Sox in short order.

And then they got a little bit better as a team themselves. And now they're just one of a litany of terrible teams. They don't really stand out. So that's what the Rockies are aiming for. But they failed to not stand out in this three-game series. I will say, in their slight defense, you know how we were talking about the Nick Kurtz game and the Shohei game and how some of these spectacular individual performances are slightly tainted now because there's a position player pitcher in the mix that leads to the fourth home run or whatever. That came into play here, too, because on. On Wednesday, the Rockies were down merely 12 to 1, which would have been bad, but they would not have set all of these records if they had lost 12 to 1 in that game.

But they put in catcher Austin Nola in the ninth inning, and he gave up eight runs on two homers, and that turned 12 to 1 into 20 to 1. So there is this tendency to pour gasoline on the fire when it comes to blowouts now because of the rampant position player pitching. And so maybe we have to error adjust this Rocky's failure, though they did decide not to try to avoid the history by putting in a real picture. Yeah, I think the way that I maybe think about it is that it supplies, it doesn't put an asterisk on the game score, but it does supply really important contexts that you simply must grapple with if you're going to say anything grandiose about the prowess of the Blue Jays and the. this moment or or what have you. Although I still am inclined to kind of hand it to Nick Kurtz because it is impressive and, you know, they, they deserve some good stories. They've been thin on the ground. Yeah. Okay. Well, now that we have established that I cannot do real-time arithmetic while recording a podcast, we can. I mean, I, you can't do real-time arithmetic and I am so inclined to just,

like, go along that I was like, yeah, you were, you were yes-ending me. You were just doing a good podcast I didn't, and I didn't even try to do the math on my own. I was just like, yeah, okay. Sure, Ben knows what he's talking about. Yeah, sure. That was a mistake on your part. Apparently. Okay, well, we'll get to some stat blasting done by others a little later in this episode.

But let's answer a few emails from listeners here. So, okay, here's one from Tom, who says, how would teams behave differently if the World Series winner were given an exemption on luxury taxes for that year. In this scenario, the winners would also benefit from their luxury tax status completely resetting. Would more teams be willing to spend more? Or would they back off of spending if they felt they were long shots? So competitive balance tax, payroll tax, whatever you want to call it, if you win, you are exempt. It's like, I don't know, it's if you, I guess it's kind of like, I guess it's kind of like the prospect promotion incentives, sort of.

But this is a spending promotion incentive, which, of course, teams don't want to do, really. So this would have to be something that the PA would push for in bargaining, I guess. So would we advise that they do? Do we think this would actually spur spending? Or Tom says, would they back off spending if they felt they were long shots? I don't know that it would change behavior on the lower end of the pay. scale, because I think that those teams are already operating on pretty narrow payroll margins. Some of that is because they maybe have rightly assessed that they are not likely to compete for

a World Series. Some of that is just, you know, you can only ever be yourself, right? But I do think that there would be maybe a little bit more looseness at the top. I think the way that it would probably manifest is not that you are pushing, if you're close to one of the thresholds, right, because they're the four and the penalties escalate, I don't know that you would necessarily be a team to say like, oh, we're already spending a lot relative to the league average. That's why we're getting close to one of these boundaries. And we're willing to go, you know, 10 million over and push into a new thing. threshold with new penalties, I think that where you would maybe see it is teams that are having a greater willingness to operate within one of their existing thresholds and incur

more tax just because the payroll is higher, but also not be willing to like bump into new thresholds. Does that make sense? Is I articulating that reasonably? I'll just say yes, like you said, yes to my arithmetic. No, I'm actually asking. No, I think so. Yeah, and, no, I agree that it wouldn't dissuade anyone from spending because you're not in any worse position than you are right now. Yeah, so if you don't win the World Series, you don't get exempted, but you don't get exempted currently. So it wouldn't really change anything for anyone else. There's just that carrot on the stick out there for one potential team. So I would say that it might not change anything or it might change things a little bit on the margins.

probably not very much because the highest preseason world series odds you're ever going to see right for a team is maybe one in four and even that is that's like the high that's the outside usually it's less than that the favorite is is even more of a long shot compared to the field so and and probably often the preseason favorite is a team that is already exceeding the spending Yeah, it's like it was the Dodgers this year. Okay, well, they're already going to go over that. Maybe they'd be even more inclined to go over that, which no one other than Dodgers fans would be happy about probably. Well, maybe some players that the Dodgers sign, perhaps.

But, yeah, I don't think it would have a huge effect. But if you're one of the, I don't know, a handful of teams that might have as high as double digits odds to win the World Series when the season starts. and you'd factor it into your model, I suppose. But yeah, it's also like if you're one of these teams that really is dead set on not going over, then you're just not going to go over because you don't even want to take the chance. Right. And if you might have a 10% chance of getting that back or not having to spend that, that's not going to be worth to you the commitment in the 90% of cases where you're,

not going to be forgiven for that, essentially. And so any team that's, like, really drawing a strict, bright line there, the tax resetting, that makes it more appealing because it's not just a one-year thing, but also if you're a repeater, then that penalty then goes away as well. So, yeah, you know, on the margins, it might make a difference. I certainly wouldn't turn it down if I were the players, but I wouldn't expect it to be any type of panacea. I also wonder if the way that it would manifest, if it manifested at all as like a change in behavior would be to result in more short term but very lucrative contracts. Like maybe you sign a guy for two years, but you have a really high AAV for those two years because you're making a determination that like this is the year.

And sure, you have you have perennial contenders, right? Like I think that good teams sort of understand their contention windows is spanning multiple seasons. They plan their payroll around that that they plan their roster around that. But I wonder if you would see like a team, maybe a team would say, like we really want this guy. And so we'll say to him, we're going to give you a two year deal or a one year deal, but it'll have a $50 million. It's for $50 million. Like maybe we would see some amount of creativity with. contract structure that would result in a one-year spike, but something that wouldn't persist

over multiple years so that if it doesn't work and you aren't able to reset penalties and you don't win a World Series that you're not like worse off over the long term. But I think that in generally, it wouldn't probably change all that much because the teams that have committed to spending meaningfully on their payroll, they're already thinking in terms of like the, I don't know if they'd articulate it quite this way, or at least not every year, but part of what's in their calculus is there, there's a monetary benefit to us of winning the World Series. And so if we are able to do it, even if we end up paying penalties, like it will offset some of that. Now, they're not like counting on winning the World Series because to your

point, even the very best teams don't have particularly good odds of doing that. But it factors a little iPad. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. We talked about Byron Buxton's cycle in

five for five game last month. It was on his bubblehead day and also he hit a bunch of balls very hard. And this is a

question or musing spurred by that from Patreon supporter Alex who says there was another unique feature of Buxton's cycle.

The sequence of events following his home run was one of the most awkward curtain calls I've ever seen. Oh.

Because the entirety of the main curtain call, Buxton climbing up the steps, pumping his fists, and going down the steps, happened quite literally as Willie Castro's first pitch Homer was mid-air. And he's sent us

a little clip here, and he made a detailed timeline of the awkwardness after the team released a video featuring a view of the whole sequence. So there's a frame that captures this moment well, and I'll link to this folder. In the image, Buxton is mid-curtain call

as Castro out of focus in foreground is about to round first. Most fans are watching the homer, though in reality the reason they're on their feet so uniformly is Buxton. No disrespect to Castro, a fine player and worthy fan favorite as well, now departed, but his home run increasing the twins' lead over the pirates from eight runs to nine runs is probably going to be funnily remembered more than it would have been otherwise. To what extent should we be comfortable with awkward moments like this? It's a moment of baseball feel goodery, yet one in which there was clearly room for more goodery. It's not feel battery by any means, at the risk of being gauche.

The only victim of battery is the baseball Castro clobbered. I far prefer Castro homering to a controversy that sours things such as Cody Bellinger being assessed a pitch-caught violation during the standing ovation Dodgers fans gave him upon returning to L.A. Still, it feels like we might have missed out on a slightly more meaningful Buxton curtain call there. And this wasn't merely a moment created by the pitch clock. The Twins Spartan Helmet celebration probably added a wrinkle. I suspect that Buxton, a team first guy, happily used it as an excuse to dip back into the dugout, shifting focus away from his personal accolade

before fans really gave him a proper curtain to begin with. Even Twins color man, Glenn Perkins, a former teammate of Buxton's initially stated that there wasn't a curtain call. We typically don't notice the void formed by certain things not happening because of things that are happening. And while pitch clocks and helmet celebrations or even rancid summer sausage celebrations, kind of glad we retired to that. I guess brewers are doing fine without it. I don't know. For all, I know, the summer sausage is still lurking somewhere.

I mean, I will say the following. I do not support the summer sausage. If it is still lurking, it is sentient and coming for all of us. And so I say that Andrew Vaughn must kill it. He has to find and kill the summer sausage. And if he does that, whatever gains he's made as a hitter will be locked in and made permanent. That's my theory, yeah. Yeah, so while pitch clocks and helmet celebrations are probably net positive baseball,

how much do you think they're sneakily sucking a little meaning out of things? For instance, one thing we haven't seen in a while is a vacated dugout. That takes time, and baseball is on a clock. People consider this not a critique per se. It's food for thought, hopefully not a rancid summer sausage. And it's also a ritualistic means of being a big Byron Buxton fan and indirectly, retroactively delivering a small slice of well-deserved digital curtain call appreciation in his honor.

So are we not maximizing curtain calls and celebrations because we're in too much of a hurry to move on to the next event? I don't find myself longing for curtain calls that last longer. I think that we do a pretty okay job. this is an unusual circumstance. I don't think that this is like a, you know, we've rushed along because of the pitch clock and now here we are unable to take a moment. It's just kind of a strange little circumstance.

I think that we curtain call fine. I think that umpires are pretty forgiving of curtain calls. They let guys have their moment. And, you know, I think we are at the right level. We've reached the right amount. Are you, do you find yourself sitting there going, we aren't acknowledging these guys enough? Do you find that? No, not really.

I do find myself realizing that I've made another mistake, which is that I've, I've conflated Milwaukee and Minnesota when it comes to the summer sausage. Because that was, it was twins, right? You're right. It was Minnesota. Right. I'm thinking of. All of you don't send on your mid-episode email. We're going to get the mid-episode emails where people follow up five minutes later and say, oh, I should have kept listening.

But, no, I conflated the racing sausages of the brewers with the summer sausage of the twins. And maybe I'm guilty of Midwest, anti-Midwest bias or something here. But, of course, this was brought up in the context of Buxton and the twins. Yeah. Right. So, of course. But also, I associate the state of Wisconsin with three things. Beer, cheese, I guess dairy products writ large.

And I do associate it with brats, you know? Yes, yes. Brat specifically, obviously, the sausage races include a variety of different kinds of encased meats. But I can see how your brain got there. I know how that happened. And so maybe the issue is that the sausage has, again, becomes ascension and it has imposed some sort of terrifying will upon the twins. and that is how we can, maybe, maybe they ate the sausage. Maybe they're like, we have to kill and eat the sausage to, because it's, and then they got,

and they haven't, they're like, Meg said no raw milk. We haven't been doing that. She didn't say anything about the rancid sausage. So maybe this is really my fault, you know, I am to blame for the twins' misfortune because I didn't specify, hey, when the sausage goes bad, got throw away that sausage, you know, I should have said. I've shared that advice with other people. Michael Bowman still messages me to ask if I think he should eat whatever cold cuts are in his fridge

because one time I was like, hey, you've described cold cuts that sound like they are passed to do, and my mom would say don't eat those. Yeah, yeah, I assume that you've seen the Florida outbreak of E. coli linked to drinking raw milk. Yeah, that's-oh, God. That's happening right now. See? See? This is what, and look, I understand that there are, you might have a local farmer and

your local farmer has done a good job, you know, and is being careful. But you don't know that. And you don't even know your local farmer. I mean, some of you do. Maybe some of you are your local farmer. I'm sure your milk is safe. But the average consumer, they don't know what's going on on that farm. They can't say for sure.

People just used to die from, I'm going to swear, and it is going to be both rude and disgusting, and so I apologize in advance. But people used to die from shitting themselves to death. They would sh** themselves to death, Ben. They would sh** themselves to death. They would burp themselves to death. We would just do that a lot as a species. And then we came up with a way to deal with it.

And I think we should avail ourselves of that miracle. You know, it's amazing. It is a testament. I know that we make a big deal out of going to the moon. And it is amazing because we went to space and people came back alive. That's, I mean, it's as I've established on the show before, none of my business and not a place I belong. And I'm not going up there, even if the opportunity presents itself. That's not for me, you know?

I don't belong up there, just like I don't belong on the bottom of the ocean. But it's a miracle. It's amazing. But in terms of, like, is a pound for pound impact on. the day-to-day of humanity kind of miracle, I'd argue that some of this food safety stuff has to rank because, you know, a lot of people living in places with good food safety, they just, their odds of shitting themselves to death go are way down. And it's a bad way to go. And so you owe it to people who are not fortunate enough to live in that circumstance.

I sound like, I sound like my mother now, you know? The starving children line that we're out there, that we all used to get, unfortunately. So, but I'm just saying, like, it's a bad way to go. And it's a way to go where people you know would feel compelled to lie about how you died. And do you want to put them in that position? You do not. Yes. You do not.

Yeah. Don't make people use a euphemism when talking about what did you end. Yeah. No, playing Oregon Trail as a child is as close to dysentery as I care to come. As you care to get. Yeah. And actually, I saw just a headline from this March. about dysentery being on the rise in Oregon, of all places. No. No.

Yeah. All the diseases that we killed are coming back. Why not? Yeah, they sure are. But I'll say this, you know, just because we're in the Northwest, I don't know that our incidents of playing Oregon Trail were higher than the national average. At least not by the time you and I were playing Oregon Trail. Maybe in the early days of not of the Oregon Trail of the game.

Oregon Trail. Yes. I might, okay, we're going to get back to baseball, I swear. But I will, I will say that I felt like Oregon Trail failed insofar as, you know, or maybe I'm thinking of Buck Hunter. You know, and Buck Hunter, when you shoot other stuff, you, like, lose points. And I'm like, that's wasteful. You shouldn't encourage people to view that as unworthy just because they hit something.

something else. Sure. Yeah. Use the whole animal, I guess. Yeah, every part of the cow. Anyway, every part of the cow, but the part that makes you poop yourself to death. Not that part. Leave that part outside.

Buck Hunter was secretly an animal preservation vector. It was trying to preserve other animals by saying that that wasn't, they weren't worth killing. Okay. Sure. Okay. Yeah. It's really environmentalist when you think about it.

Yes, exactly. I did just read about a bull who hunted a hunter who was going for the big game in Africa. Yeah, I saw that. A U.S. millionaire who was over there and got gourd to death because he did mess with the bull. And he did get the horns. As I'm sure many a person pointed out anyway. We sound insensitive. We do.

And I don't mean to be, but also, like, there is a fuck around and find out about that. Yeah, the man had a family, but probably the bull did too. Anyway. Anyway. Steering things somehow back to baseball if we can. Steering things. We make some mistakes and also we catch some of those mistakes as we're recording in midstream. I heard it.

You didn't want to laugh at it? It was such a good joke. It was pretty good. Yeah. Thank you. All right. The twins, summer sausage, the brewers, pocket pancakes. They're the ones with the pocket pancakes.

Or at least Pat Murphy has the pocket pancake. All right. Pocket pancake. Back to baseball. Wait. Hold on. He has a pocket pancake? What does that mean?

Yes. He whipped out a pocket pancake mid-game as he was being interviewed just during a game. He had a pancake in his pocket. Okay. So he's trying to make pancake like a walking around food? Yeah. And he offered it to the reporter who was surprisingly game for it and took a bite, even though he had already nod on it, I think. I guess she took care to maybe take a nibble on a party.

of the pancake that he had hopefully yes anyway i don't judge wouldn't that side be the side that was touching in the bottom of his pocket it's either like pat murphy saliva or lint i guess yeah so one way or another not the best probably sorry we're we're fully off track and so i'm just going to lean i'm going to steer into the skid here so sorry it was just like a loose pocket pancake it wasn't like in a not in a any kind of container i don't think no just free floating Did it have syrup on it? I don't think it had. I don't think so.

Okay. Because like I could imagine, you know, I applaud people innovating the walking around food space. Yeah, me too. I think that we need more hand pancakes, hand, you know, like you need more pocket food. You need more walking around food. But the thing. about a pancake is that often, not always, but very often pancakes have syrup on them. And so then you have a sticky pocket food and the insides of your pockets lint to your point, depending on

how recently your pants have been washed, potentially like dirt and other nonsense. So it seems like it's not a good pocket food. It's a good walking around food potentially. You could fold it up and put it in like a little sleeve and then you'd have a walking around pancake and that sounds great, you know, to have a walking around pancake in the morning. Yeah, I'm an unorthodox snacker. Sam made fun of me and the only rule

for bringing a bag of raw mushrooms to a ballpark, which is not something I have ever done other than that one time. But I didn't do that. Yeah. So, yeah, I'm not bound by societal disapproval necessarily when it comes to portable snacks. Watching this again, Tricia Whitaker, who was the in-game interviewer on Apple TV Plus, she actually did tear off a piece of the pocket pancake that was directly adjacent to the bite mark that was left by Pat Murphy.

So she didn't actually rotate the pocket pancake. And there was maybe some peer pressure or some, hey, I'm on live TV. And the manager I'm interviewing just offered me a piece of the pocket pancake. and so I want to be a good sport and go along with it. But, yeah, there were some definite contact there with where the bite had happened. Hmm. Pocket pancake, man, between the pocket pancake and the purse tuna, I am rendered on well. Here's a question from Brian.

Oh, I meant to say, I don't actually think that it's an issue with the pitch clock just suppressing celebrations. really. Because after that happened, they did. You can get a special dispensation if someone comes back to their old team or something and they are going to get a cheer. You can clear that ahead of time with the league and get an extension in anticipation of the fact that they're going to get that extra applause and you can let them have their moment. And I think that's nice. And if the odd curtain call gets killed in the process, it's not the worst thing in the world. I guess we could maximize it. Because usually you're not going to get the home run. that comes immediately after or during the curtain call. So it's a rare case. Right. This is my point. It was that's sort of a strange circumstance, one that I imagine isn't likely to recur with any regularity.

Question from Brian. Seeing Sir Anthony Dominguez swap bullpens between games gave me an idea, non-partisan bullpens. Hear me out. Both teams still have their allotment of bullpen pitchers on their roster. but during a game, a manager could call upon a relief pitcher from either roster to come in and pitch, if they so choose. Think of these strategy opportunities. Would you choose to burn your opponents closer early to rob them of using them?

Or would this be some Bush League move and evidence of a lack of masculinity by the managers? I don't know why that would be evidence of a lack of manliness, but you both know this strategy would be called out as being less macho by players. During a game, do you lean heavily on your opponent's bullpen to leave yours alone, but you have to consider what happens in game two if in that series the opposing manager counters with using only your guys, and where did the competitive loyalties of a nonpartisan pen truly lie with themselves, with their rostered friends? Could a manager trust the players from the other roster to get out their own teammates owe the drama? This would, of course, require some nonpartisan bullpen ombudsman to call bullshit on nefarious usages, meant to harm or otherwise hurt players, can't have a manager decide to try to overwork another roster's players. Right. And from a disgusting jersey ad point of view, the community chess bullpen arms could be decked out in nonpartisan sponsored jerseys like those dopey oat milkers, uni's minor leakers are forced to wear. The oat milkers jersey is so bad, it says baseball player where the name should be. So nonpartisan bullpens, I don't know how you could truly make them nonpartisan if they are still a member.

Right. It's not exactly a community bullpen like anyone can draw on like an emergency goalie sort of situation or something. Like they're still employed by a particular team paid by that team. But they are kind of mercenaries in this scenario, I guess. And, yeah, where would their loyalties lie with the uniform or with their own stats? Because can you really expect them to go against their interests? If they're in a game, this would just wreak havoc with all sorts of stats. We'd have to call into question motivations.

It would be very difficult to parse this. You'd have to have splits for when the relievers are pitching for their opponent and when they're pitching for their own team. So that you could compare. This is kind of complicated. It's kind of complicated. And the complication is honestly what undoes it because you're right. There would need to be like an Omsbud person to litigate any disputes.

And you can't introduce more committee meetings to the sport. We already have all this like negotiation that goes on. You'll put them in the moon mammoth uniforms though. because it was super cool. Can I go down a minor cul-de-sac and then we can return to the non-part symbol? Yeah.

I've been so on topic to this point. Yeah, I've been really focused. I have a very specific bone to pick with whoever shot the photos on the day that the moon mammoths, quote-unquote, played the Sea Woles played the Bay Sox and they played them in the moon-mammoth uniforms.

I have found myself exhausted by the minor league uniform gimmick. I think that many of them are overwrought. They are optimized for sales. But I like these a lot. I like the little logo. I bought a sweatshirt. But here's my beef, Ben. The moon mammoths are actually the Erie Sea Wolves,

which is the double-a affiliate of the Detroit Tigers. A lot of really good prospects on that team, including Kevin McGonagall, who we have as the top prospect, baseball. And whoever took photos for the photo services at that game did not get a photo of Kevin McGonnell in his moon mammoth

uniform. And I was going to use that everywhere. I was going to use it on the next Tigers list. I was going to use it on the top 100 update. I was going to use it just for fun and giggles. They got like one photo of Max Clark bunting. I don't know if they got any of Berseno

who did not have a good game in that moon mammoth game, but still good prospect. But I think I'm entitled to restitution. And maybe the Getty people got a moon mammoth, McGonical photo, but not the image in folks. And that's who we use. So I am furious because he's a, even if, even if you don't take our list word for him, we're not the only one who have him at one, I don't think. But like, he, he's one of the best prospects in baseball. You should, you should take, you should go in with a list, with a list and go, I have.

have targets. I have to get Craig and Meg and JJ some photos because there aren't enough of them. Maybe he ducked the photographers on purpose because he did not want a record of himself as a moon mammoth, but it does seem like a lost opportunity because if he pans out and becomes a great player, then we could have had that historical artifact. Moon mammoths, moon mammoths, moon. I just, I, you know, You know, John Oliver had a really good time that day, it seemed. Like, I had that game on, and he's in the booth, and he's being the popcorn guy, and he's doing, take me out of the ball game.

And it just seemed like he was having a great time. And I was like, you know what, good for you, John. Your show's really heavy. I'm glad you got to have a good day. That seems nice. Yeah, could have been a good trivia question. Yes. Maybe on someone's memory card somewhere.

there is a picture of him, and it just hasn't been added to the services or something, but it'll surface someday if and when Kevin McGonagall is a star, and then there will be some kind of collectible memento of his moon-mimuth era. Yes. I have to say, I must correct the record in the interest of factually accurate. Bersenio had a bad day at the plate, but I thought Bersenio caught that game. He did not, it was Lorenzo. He did not look good behind that plate that day.

I'm not commenting on his future as a backstop. But I didn't remember that Persano-D-H that day. So you all don't send your emails on that either. Don't even... We're covering all our faces here. All of our screw-ups, we're catching them. We're probably missing some massive screw-up here that we didn't even notice. Oh, I'm sure.

Yes, this could have been a delightful photo-up, much as Emma Bachelary often delights in when big leaguers are on rehab assignments and they have to wear some gimmicky minor league uniform? Yes. It could have been that, but for a future star, perhaps. All right. A couple responses we got to something we talked about recently, which was a question about Victor Keratini being perfect at the plate and whether he was actually perfect because he had not made an out and what perfection actually is for a hitter. And listener, Patreon, supporter Jameson says, listening to the discussion of whether or not three-for-three with a walk could be considered a perfect night at the plate, I thought, maybe it's somewhat analogous to the difference between

a no-hitter and a perfect game. I think we touched on that. A pitcher can face 27 batters and not have a perfect game or can give up no hits and no walks, but still face more than 27 batters. Karatini could be said to have had a no outer. And it wouldn't make sense to say a perfect day at the plate is all homers. We don't say a pitcher needs to strike out 27 for his team to be perfect. So I say no outer is just that a batter makes no outs. A perfect day. A perfect day, day at the plate is hits in every plate appearance. Hmm. And maybe all homers is an immaculate day.

Oh, boy. Interesting. Yeah, now we're straight into controversial territory. But, yeah, I guess, I guess there is some hunger for some other terminology when it comes to hitter performances. Remember when we talked about the yes hitter? Yes. The quasi opposite of the no hitter.

So Malcolm, another Patreon supporter, wrote in to say after listening to your discussion of perfect games, quote-unquote, for batterers on today's episode. I was thinking about the hierarchy of performance-related adjectives that baseball has established for pitchers and how they might apply to batters. We have names for every above-average caliber of pitching performance, from a quality start to a no-hitter, to a perfect game, and finally to an immaculate inning, the natural extension of which would be an immaculate game, though that is almost certainly an impossible feed at the MLB level.

The natural question, of course, is what would each of these tiers look like for a batter? my suggestion would be quality start is an above-average batting line without being subbed into or pulled from a game, say two hits with at least four plate appearances or perhaps three total bases, a no outer independently derived suggestion here, great minds, reach base in every plate appearance, including by Walker hit by pitch, a perfect game, reach base in every plate appearance exclusively by recording a hit. And Immaculate game, and this one would be a nothing but Dingers performance by this logic. Any pinch hit home run would also be an immaculate at bat, paralleling the pitcher's immaculate inning. I'd love to hear thoughts on the concept and what performance you would assign to each term. So there does seem to be a void here when it comes to classifying batter performance, because we do have game score for pitchers. And I know Bill James did subsequently develop a game score for. batters too, but it's not as well publicized or as easily available.

I think it was maybe debuted in one of the Bill James handbooks or maybe on Bill James's website, which is now defunct, and so you can't stat-head it, I don't think. And I guess it's more important to have some sort of score or term for starting pitcher performances because in that single game, they can have an outsized impact just because, proportionately speaking, they're accounting for a higher percentage of the batter's face than any individual batter does of plate appearances. So it's imperative to have some sort of pitcher scale, I guess, and we've gotten along well enough without having something quite equivalent for batters. And plus, I guess it's easier to just sum up what a batter did maybe just with like the one for four with a double or whatever, right? like that's that sort of suffices maybe whereas with a pitcher you have a line score but it's just a little longer and there are more elements to it maybe so i don't know i maybe we don't need it but i i kind of like the idea of having something here i like it too and i'm trying to decide like what the best thing is because i don't know there are like a lot of different ways that you can be impactful as a hitter i mean there are ways you don't

different ways you're going to be impactful as a pitcher too and if you're looking for like a commensurate like a like we have sort of summary stats right like you do have game by game like w rc plus yeah or when probability added or right and so it's like what are you you know with all of these it's like what are you trying to actually communicate like do you want an all-encompassing stat or do you want something that is specifically drilling down on an aspect of it? Like the all, what did he say?

The all hitter? All out. Well, the perfect game, I guess, would be all hits. The no outer would be no outs. That sounds like a, I like no outer. I do too. It sounds like a kind of belly button also. Yeah.

I would probably maybe opt for like a bunch of different ways of describing different kinds of contributions because like I also think that there are different ways to have like a really cool and satisfying game right like if you only hit home runs like that's cool if you have all hits that's cool but in a different way what's the coolest kind of maybe the coolest kind of way is like all hits and they're all triples because that would be has that ever happened has anyone ever had an all triples game probably not well yeah I guess set some some minimum number of played appearances.

Yeah. But so I'm comfortable with there being a few different descriptive this is or that's because I think there are a lot of ways to have a cool game. I don't know that, you know, perfect game probably needs to mean one specific thing. But I think there are a lot of cool games. Maybe. Yeah. I don't know.

Yeah. And there's also the defensive component, though, I suppose that's true for pitchers to some extent also. Yeah, I think it's more, it has the potential to be a more meaningful part of the hitter, of a position player's game, right? Like, but true, yeah, they do field even if it's a, it's less of a big deal, although there are times when it's like the biggest deal. So what am I even saying? Sure. I guess they do more fielding.

I mean, they touch the ball more so than almost anyone else except for a catcher. Right. Right. Yeah. But also the challenge of catching a toss back from the catcher is not quite that high. Precisely, precisely. So it is a kind of a funny, it's sort of a funny thing. But I don't know. I, hmm, I want to think about it. Wait, what was it? No outer? No outer. Yeah. I endorse the no outer. I like that. I think I'm going to incorporate that into my lexicon. It does sound like a kind of belly button though. Yeah. But I like having any, any and outy. I mean, now it's sort of a severance thing. But it's also, yeah, right. Here's a question. This is from Nathan, a Patreon supporter, who says, I'm a very long-time listener.

I come to you hoping to gain some perspective on whether or not my joke baseball shirt is funny. Oh. So we're going to explain a joke here and weigh in on the comedy factor. The T-shirt and I have been on a journey together. I think it just gets funnier with age. In some recent events, I feel, have complimented the humor quite nicely. But as an autistic person, I often struggle with humor. I frequently find the quote-unquote wrong thing funny or too funny or miss the joke completely.

I need a third party knowledgeable in baseball and humor. I guess we're knowledgeable in at least one of those things to weigh in. The shirt in question is a Carlos Correa Giants jersey. Okay. I ordered it custom on a whim back when his negotiations with the Giants stalled out and he briefly signed with the Mets. The subsequent move away from New York to settle in Minnesota left me a little bewildered. Was my shirt still funny? Was it funnier?

To make matters worse, I'm not close with many other baseball fans, so my only real test of its humor is wearing it to games, which I can rarely afford to attend. So far, no comments from fellow attendees at Rate Field on the one occasion I went last year. Correa landing back in Houston last week had me truly bewildered. Either this meant that my shirt was completely unfunny, or it was now funnier than it is. ever been. Ben and Meg, please help me understand comedy. That's a tall order right there. This is a tall order. You already do so much to help me understand baseball, so I trust you to guide me correctly and with good humor, so to speak. So Carlos Crea, Giants, Shurze. And I guess this is a Twins fan. Initially, I was thinking this was someone who was going to Giants games with the Giants

Shurzy. But, well, so he mentioned going to Rate Field. Right. Which puts him in Chicago, I think. think, yeah. But that doesn't mean he can't be a Giants fan or a Twins fan, rather. Yeah. You know, that could just be your closest ballpark. Yeah. I think it's funny. I don't know. Well, here's a really terrific piece of advice that I was once given by Sam Miller. You know, sometimes you write jokes for the people who are going to get them. And I imagine that the number of people who, upon seeing. a Correa Giants jersey would like immediately clock the reference, probably small. But the people who do are going to really laugh at that or at least be like, oh my gosh,

I can't believe. I'm amazed that he was able to order one because they tend to be pretty tight on what names you can put on jerseys for or jerseys for active players. You must have gotten it in. Maybe it was some sort of third party provider or something, I don't know. um but i i think it's funny it would be funny if you got one of those like you know when um when they're brothers who are big leaguers and then those brothers play each other in a game and you'll like see their parent and they'll have like the split jersey you know that it'll be like one team for

the other and the last name like one of those with the Mets would maybe be the the most funny but i think that you're in in funny territory i don't know if i am a representative um sample and i don't know if i'm funny so you make of that what you will but you have at least one person who if i saw that in the ballpark i go oh my god that's funny yeah so you did do a little chuckle when i read this i did i was cray a giant shirgy so i guess that's the that's the reaction right there but I think probably it was funny initially and then maybe it got a little less funny and now it will only get funnier.

Yes. And fewer and fewer people will understand the reference. 100%. But those who do will appreciate it more because it's just more of a deep cut. Like, yes. Yeah, I guess if you were wearing it at first to gloat, like if Nathan is not a Giants fan

and was parading it around in San Francisco to remind people of the one who got away, though, I guess they willingly cut him loose right after he had the physical, so it's not like he left of his own accord. But the Giants did have that repeated failure to sign their top targets for whatever reason. I'm sure that there are people walking around with arson judge jerseys, right? So this would be a little less obvious way of making that same joke. Maybe it was undercut a bit by the fact that he then went to the Mets and he left them two.

So it wasn't just a Giants thing. that they had had him and then he wriggled through the net or they cut baits, they caught and released. But then he goes now to Houston and he's had so many moves since then that it's almost, it's sort of more whimsical now because it's like, what is the point even? Like, are you, you're not really like holding it over the heads of Giants fans. Plus, Correa, at least this year, is not playing very well. So the Giants are probably pleased that they didn't sign him to that contract at this moment. So it's hard to decipher exactly what the message of it is. But maybe it's just a monument to that moment in time.

Yeah. Which was one of the weirdest off-season sagas of all time for a free agent. And so just to call back to that time when like Carra signed with three different teams in one off-season. or, you know, that was, that's something that brings a smile to my face just to recall it. So I would wonder, like, what message is the wearer trying to send to me? But maybe it's just, hey, remember when that happened? That was funny. Right.

Yeah. I think that it will be one of those that a couple of years from now, it will be particularly funny because all the little ins and outs will have been lost. But we will remember that bonkers offseason where, like, Clemens had to write like four different career. assigning reacts. Yeah. It's like, no,

no, this one's going to stick and then it didn't. It didn't stick. It took three. Third time was the charm.

Yeah. And it's hard to re, it's hard to integrate the Astros trade of it all because it's not clear. Do you mean the trade back or do you mean the initial tenure,

right? So you kind of have to just lean into the, oh man, Correa. What a weird, what a weird off season that was. Such a strange winter. Yeah. Okay. And then one non-stat blast last one here,

which comes to us from Zach, who says, what would be your thoughts on increasing September roster sizes to 30? I know that the full 40 was completely unwieldy and ridiculous, but have we overcorrected by going down to just one additional position player and one pitcher when the minor league seasons are winding down anyway. I was thinking it could be fun to increase just a little bit for the last month to see a few more prospects debut and the pitching changes in crowding of clubhouses wouldn't be the same problem as before. So we went from expanded 40 player rosters in September, now down to 28, which is just

barely bigger than the standard 26. So Zach is suggesting that perhaps there's a happy medium at 30. What do you think? I am the wrong person to ask this question, too, because I liked their business. being 40. I liked the opportunity to see all those guys. Now, that I don't think we will ever return to, right? Because now, especially now that September roster days count toward rookie eligibility. They always counted for service time, but it used to be that the September roster days didn't count for your rookie eligibility. And now they do, which is why guys seem

like they're graduating faster. Because they are. And, so i don't think that there would be the same there wouldn't be interest in in doing anything that would start even more guys clocks sooner um so maybe they would have to change that part but i do i do think that it would be cool and i would be into it because i want to see those guys you know and like there are probably two more there are probably two more who people and teams would be like, you know, you bring those two guys up, you know? Yeah, I'm not against it. I'm not strongly in favor of it either.

I was kind of anti-40 by the time that was all said and done. It was a little silly because you had meaningful games going on, and then all the teams had like wildly different roster sizes sometimes, and it would kind of, I don't know if it favored teams with deeper farm systems, I guess, you know, more power to them maybe. But it was, it was, And then you'd get these games with, like, so many pitchers being used. And there were no limits on the number of pitchers, I guess you could have on the roster at that point.

I liked it just because, hey, more guys get to be big leaguers, and that's nice for them. Though you want to preserve that being a rare accomplishment, of course, so that it's still meaningful. But I wouldn't begrudge the opportunity for a couple other players to get call-ups at that point. We just, we have so many newly minted major leaguers as it is, because teams are are just constantly cycling the back of their rosters anyway. And so I think that's maybe why I care about a little less because it's not like that's the only mechanism you can use to get to the big leagues.

If you're a reliever, you're just, everyone's on the shuttle as it is. And so you're already just a lot of unfamiliar faces and names. So there was something whimsical and silly about it, though. And I guess I kind of miss that while also thinking that closer to 20, I think, then 40 is ideal. But if you want to go 30 instead of 28, I'm not going to put up an argument. I am sensitive to the notion that I just want to see more guys. And it did get exhausting on the reliever side.

So if you were going to go like all the way back to 40, you'd have to, well, people wouldn't do it. But you'd have to have rules about pitchers. But I think, you know, 30 is a happy medium. You know, you get to see some guys. And you're like, yeah, look at that guy. I think it's the most fun for the teams that aren't contending because you're like, maybe there is something exciting coming. It's this prospect. Look, we get to see him.

How fun. These guys get to make Major League money for a little while. That's nice for them. Okay. All right. Just a few pretty rapid fire stat blasts here. They'll take a data set sorted by something like ERA minus or OBS plus. And then they'll tease out some.

Interested, but discuss it at length and analyze it for us in amazing ways. Here's to day, still blessed. All right, this one comes from Dan, who says we are 108 games into the Orioles season. This was sent on July 30th, and not one of the Orioles. wins has come in walk-off fashion. What's the highest win total in a season that did not feature a walk-off? What's the longest gap between walk-off wins? So frequent stat-last correspondent, Ryan Nelson, queried this one and found that there

have not been many teams whatsoever who have not had a single walk-off win. So there just really aren't many. There's, it looks like, eight teams here that he sent me that have not had a walk-off win. and one is going back to, let's see, it looks like the Browns, 1916, went 79, 75, and four, yes, four ties without a walk-off. The Tigers in 1990 went 80 and 60 without a walk-off. The Phillies in 1937, 61 and 92 and two without a walk-off. The Cardinals, 1978, 69, and 93. Expos in 95 went 66 and 78, and the 2020 Tigers.

No, the last three teams actually on the list are 20-20, so that doesn't count, short in season. The teams that have pulled this off, especially in modern ball, Ryan says, have indeed been pretty bad, but a team hasn't done it in a full-length season since 1978. So that's something to keep track of, but I suppose the record is 80 from those 1919 tigers. So it's tough not to walk off at all, even if you're not that great a team. Okay. Here is a question from Josh, who says, I heard somewhere recently that Trey Turner has yet to hit a home run at home this season.

That seemed impossible, so I went to his fan grass page, and sure enough, it's the beginning of August, and all 11 of Trey Turner's home runs have come on the road. While he hasn't been stellar at home this year, he hasn't been bad. Coming into the August 4th game, he had a 104 WRC Plus at home in 243 plate appearances, compared to his road performance, he's walking. more, striking out less, and reaching base significantly more. His home-isolated power is second lowest among qualified hitters. Only Xavier Edwards has a lower home-isolated power, and he has one total home run this year.

There's plenty of explanations in Turner's home-batted ball data for the lack of slug, but zero home runs is still shocking. His isolated power is just 60 versus 209 on the road. So my question, what's the most home runs a hitter has hit in a season? without homering at home. Where does Trey Turner's 11 total homers rank among the most total homers the player has hit before hitting their first home run

and any other stats you find interesting around this? I did some quick recent research. There are plenty of players who've gone along while without hitting a home run at home. Cesar Hernandez and Miles Straw were both qualified hitters who went homerless at home for the entire 2022 season. David Fletcher did so for the entire 2021 season. Yulmer Sanchez did so for the entire 2019 season.

But those players hit 1-0-2. and two total home runs, respectively, in those seasons. So 11 for Turner feels significant. All right, Ryan, look this up as well and found that the record is 17. 17 home runs is the most home runs with all of them coming on the road. So Trey Turner is not there yet.

And then you've got Ken Kaltner. So that was Goose Goslin in 1926. He had 17 homers. All 17 were away. Ken Keltner in 1939, 13 for 13, Jose Cruz, 84, 12 for 12. Sam Meeley, 1950, 12 for 12. Eddie, the Walking Man, Yost, 12 for 12 in 1952. And then a handful of other guys with 11, Willie Davis in 1969, Tom Pich, 1982, Babe Ruth in 1918,

Dick Sissler in 1948, and Trey Turner in 2025. So that's the only blasting he did pertaining to this. So this is something to monitor, I suppose, record territory, perhaps, here for Trey Turner. He's approaching, but he is not there yet. So he's got a ways to go. I guess in 1926, let's see, Goose Goslin was playing for the Washington Nationals. I guess they were branded that year at Griffith Stadium, which seems not to have been a super extreme pitch. Park, though it was one, but I'll have to check the home run factor on that one.

All right, question from Shane, who says, I was watching the Mariners versus Brewer's game the other day, and they showed Luis Castillo's pitch count as 90 pitches, 60 strikes, 30 balls. In the game, he had zero walks and seven strikeouts. To me, this seemed like a very large percentage of balls thrown for someone who finished a game with zero walks, 33%. which raises the question, what's the largest percentage of pitches that were balls that someone has thrown in an outing where they finished with zero walks? Maybe we can specify starting pitcher to avoid short leaf outings where pitcher threw mostly balls before getting an out or any other parameters that you see fit. But I'm interested to see if Castillo's outing was an outlier or if it's more normal than I think.

And I think the answer is that it's more normal than Shane thinks. Ryan says, 33% balls thrown with no walks is not particularly notable. Setting a minimum pitch count of 80, there have been more than 2,000 starts on record with a lower than 67% strike percentage and no walks. So the lowest strike percentage starts without a walk, minimum 80 pitches. Looks like Carlos Perez for the Expos in 1995, they come up again. He threw 92 pitches and 49 strikes. So that's a 53.3% strike percentage, and yet zero walks.

And he went five innings in that game, gave up six hits, I guess, one run, which was earned. So I guess he was helped out by the Phillies that day. It must have been a lot of deep counts, and I guess they were chasing a little bit, perhaps. So that was the lowest strike percentage in a zero-walk start, minimum 80 pitches. And then Ryan says also if we want to look at the most balls thrown without a walk, he has also given me that. And we have here Rick Rodin in 1988, Yankees versus Tigers. He threw 136 pitches, and 55 of them were balls.

So that's a 59.6% strike rate. And he had zero walks. It was a complete game, I guess. He went nine, seven hits, four runs, all earned. But no walks, despite throwing 55 balls. So I'll put the full leaderboard up there for anyone who is interested in some of the close calls, the ball close calls. And then a corollary to that, MD 24 in our Patreon Discord group said, I think on the Cubs broadcast today, they noted in passing that Cade Horton's start had the highest strike rate. of any either start or outing for a pitcher. Minimum 50 pitches may have been other qualifiers,

but I was distracted by eating lunch. Fair enough. Fifty-six of the 67 pitches he threw were strikes, or 83.5 percent. So Ryan looked at that also and found that that's not quite a record, but it is fairly close. It is a Cubs record, which is perhaps what MDIG had heard. So there's only a small sample of starts, minimum 50 pitches with a higher. strike percentage. Of course, Bartolo Colon shows up twice. Oh, sure. On this short list, makes sense. But actually, Kevin Gossman is number one in strike percentage. Yeah, not the first guy I would have thought of. But 2021, May 30th, Giants versus Dodgers, he threw 72 pitches and 62 of them were strikes. So that is 86.1% strike rate. He went six innings, two hits, no runs. So I'll put

online as well. So some history of some sort made by Cade there. Okay. And then this one comes to us from Andrew, Patreon supporter, who says, I thought of you two on this one when the Braves and Reds traded eight-run eighth innings on Thursday. This was sent this past Sunday. I assume that's the latest inning where both teams scored the same number of runs equal to the inning. I'm sure there have been thousands of teams trading one run each in the first and probably lots of two-to-run second innings for both teams and likely a decent number of both teams scoring three in the third, but any idea how deep it goes, and Ryan confirms, yes, that is a record.

No one had ever done eight runs each in the eighth or even seven runs each in the seventh. So the previous record, I guess, came September 17th, 1920, Philadelphia A's versus St. Louis Browns, and they each scored six in the sixth. And the Browns went on to win 17 to 8. And Ryan says, P.S., this Braves team is so bad. It pants me. Poor Ryan. He is a Braves fan. Yeah. And some other stuff related to that game from our Patreon Discord group, Andrew M. asked, what's the most collective runs two teams have scored in an inning where they entered tied and exited tide because the Reds and Braves entered the eighth tied three to three and then exited the eighth tied 11 to 11.

And Michael Mountain Stap blasted this and found that this tied a record set in 2007 by the White Sox and Yankees. So that was actually fairly recent, but the White Sox and Yankees, the White Sox won that one 13 to nine, but they each scored eight in the second inning, it looks like. And then the White Sox were also involved in a 2013 game that featured the highest scoring non-game ending extra inning ever. Ten total runs scored in the 14th, and they had to keep going. That was White Sox and Mariners. Who knows, you may have been watching that one.

But White Sox won seven to five in 16 innings. So they had to play on. And Michael says, bonus, based on how he ran the query for this, it was also easy to find the game that featured the most total run scoring before the score was ever tied. Obviously, a zero to zero at game start is excluded, and it's a 1979 game between the Phillies and Cubs in which 13 total runs scored in the first inning, and the first time the game was tied after that was 22, 22 at the end of the eighth. Wow. Yeah.

Second place, Marlins at Rockies, 2008, wasn't tied until 18 to 18 in the bottom of the ninth, moments before Chris Ioneta hit a bases loaded, walk-off single, and rounding out the podium is a White Sox Tigers game from 1925 in which the Sox battled back valiantly scoring 10 uninsured runs in the final three innings to tie it at 15 before Ty Cobb hit a walk-off home run in the bottom of the ninth.

Ty Cobb, 1925. That's where we sort of started this episode. Yes, all right? And also, Tyco. Yeah, that too, I guess. Yeah, it works on so many levels, or at least two. And then the Patreon supporter in our Discord group, Uber Nostrum, says,

What's the oldest combined battery age in an MLB game? So pitch or catcher, this was prompted by Rich Hill pitching to Salvador Perez. And so they wanted to know how close that would come to the record. Michael determined that the record appears to be Jack Quinn, 47 years old and seven days, pitching to Wally Shang 40 years, 10 months, 16 days on July 8, 1930. Wow. So not even close, really. I think Jack Quinn still had a few years left in him at that point at age 47.

So Rich Hill would have had to pitch to Salvi in the 2029 season That would have broken that record But doesn't look like that's going to happen And then Wandering Winder Another Patreon supporter as a follow-up to that Asked about batter versus pitcher matchups Who's the oldest hitter to Or combined batter pitcher age, I guess

And Michael found that that was Roger Clemens 44 and 10 months and 11 days Pitching to who else Julio Franco, 48, nine months, 23 days on June 15th, 2007. And so Rich Hill would have had to pitch to Justin Turner on or after May 20th, 20209. So if Richel can hang around until 2029 somehow and pitch to Salvador Perez and also Justin Turner, maybe they can combine. All three of them can maybe come out of retirement to unite and break both of these records at once.

That would be fine. But earlier that same year that Clemens and Franco matched up, 43-year-old Randy Johnson also pitched to Julio. And in 2003, 46-year-old Jesse Orozco pitched to 44-year-old Leo Franco. So basically, Michael says, Leo Franco is a cheat code for this stat. Other recent ones, 49-year-old Jamie Moyer pitching to 40-year-old Henry Blanco, the start before his battery pairing with Ramon Hernandez, and 48-year-old Phil Necro,

Pitching to 41-year-old Hal McCray in 1987, and a final fun one, 49-year-old future Hall of Famer Hoyt Wilhelm, pitching to 40-year-old future Hall of Famer Willie Mays on September 14th, 1971. So this has been about remembering some old guys. That's fantastic. All right, bonus stat blast. I did check out Meg's mid-episode question about whether anyone has ever had an all-triples game, a triplet, a triple header, an oomber. all triples? And the answer is, not really. I just stat-headed cases where the number of triples was the same as the number of plate appearances sorted by descending plate appearances. And with those conditions, no one has had more than two such plate appearances in a game where they're just all

triples. That has happened eight times. Mostly pinch hitters, a couple pitchers in there. I'll link to the results. But no one, it looks like, who has tripled in every plate appearance in a game and had more than two of them. Also, we were talking about professional softball and college softball vis-à-vis female umps in the majors. Last time when we talked about Jen Powell's promotion, I think we neglected to mention that Jen Powell played softball herself at Hofstra and then umpired NCAA softball from 2010 to 2016, after which she was invited to the umpire training academy. She went to an MLB tryout camp in 2015. Then she started out in rookie ball in 2016 and worked her way up, got to AAA two years ago, became a crew chief, she put her time in. We put our podcasting time in here at Effectively

Wild, and we can continue to do so with your help if you support the podcast on Patreon, which you can do by going to patreon.com slash Effectively Wild, and signing up to pledge some monthly or yearly amount to help keep the podcast going, help us stay ad free, and get yourself access to some perks. As have the following five listeners, Josh U, Jared Summers, Ian, Jesse Cox, and Jay Ammo. 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, discounts on merch and ad-free Fangraphs memberships, and so much more.

Check out all the offerings at patreon.com slash Effectively Wild. If you are a Patreon supporter, you can message us through the Patreon site. If not, you can contact us via email. Send your questions, comments, intro, and outro themes to podcast at Fangrafts.com. You can rate, review, and subscribe to Effectively Wild on Apple Podcast, Spotify, YouTube music, and other podcast platforms. You can find the Effectively Wild subreddit at our slash Effectively Wild. You can join our Facebook group at Facebook.com slash group slash Effectively Wild.

And you can check the show notes at Fangraphs or the episode description in your podcast app for links to the stories and stats we cited today. Thanks to Shane McKeon for his editing and production assistance. We'll be back with one more episode before the end of the week, which means we will talk to you soon. Does baseball look the same to you as it does to me? When we look at baseball How much do we see Well, the curve balls bend And the home runs fly

More to the game that beats the eye To get the stats compiled and the stories filed Fans on the internet might get riled But we can break it down Uneffectively Wild