Effectively Wild: A FanGraphs Baseball Podcast - Effectively Wild Episode 2374: The Death of Exsportise

Episode Date: September 13, 2025

Ben Lindbergh and Meg Rowley banter about the deepening twilight of Mike Trout, then (21:19) discuss why the so-called “death of expertise” sweeping society hasn’t swept sports in the same way, before answering listener emails (1:04:01) about whether the Rangers are good, how the count can be “quickly 0-2,” what makes a righty seem like […]

Have a catch and a slog with me and a virtual rise. From small sample size, these fun facts must lie. It's effectively wild. A strange book could hang. Effectively Wild. Hello and welcome to episode 2374 of Effectively Wild. a Fangrass Baseball podcast brought to you by our Patreon supporters. I'm Meg Rally Fangrass, and I am joined by Ben Lindberg of the ringer.

Ben, how are you? I'm in a reflective mood about multiple topics that I will bring up on this podcast, but the first of them being Mike Trout. Okay. Now, do you remember the last time we talked about Mike Trout, it was a little more than a month ago. Yeah. It was episode 2359, and the topic was basically, Mike Trout is boring now, and that's sad, because he wasn't hurt.

He was actually playing. He just wasn't playing very well. And this was a new phase, a new stage of the Mike Trout decline, where he was, at least on the surface, healthy, able to be in the lineup, if not the field. And yet, just not playing particularly well, not terribly, but just meh. And that was a change from the previous stages of Mike Trout is the best player ever. Mike Trout is still great. but he's just unavailable a lot of the time. But if he could only stay healthy, then maybe he could still be great again.

And then this felt like the final phase of, huh, maybe it's not just the injuries anymore. Or maybe it's the cumulative effect of the injuries, having taken their toll on top of aging. And this is just who he is. I mentioned on that episode, well, he is about to hit his 400th Homer. So at least that will give us some opportunity to celebrate Mike Trout. he still hasn't. He still has not hit that home run. He was at 398 when we talked about it. That podcast was published, I think, August 9th. And he was stuck on 398 until Thursday, until yesterday. We're recording this Friday. He finally went to 399. It was the longest homerless games streak of his career. So that was bad. However, in that same game, he got six plays. appearances, and that pushed him over the qualifying for the full season bar. So he has 503 played appearances.

Now you need 502 to qualify in 162 game season, 3.1 played appearances per team game. So this is the first time he has qualified for the batting title since 2020. And 2020, obviously, was a shortened season. So since 2019, in a full season. Yeah. And that is a victory of sorts, just the fact that he was able to qualify for a batting title. However, he is nowhere near contending for one or just generally hitting or playing all that well. And Sam Blum just wrote a piece about this for The Athletic and caught up with Trout.

Now the headline, well, I was going to ask you about this. Here's the headline for this piece. A mid-career worst season, Angels, Mike Trout, still believes he can be among games best. Can we say that it is his career worst season? Is it worse than the seasons where he barely played at all? Is it worse than last season when he played 29 games and was worth 0.9 more? And now he's been worth 1.6 war and he's at least been in the lineup a lot. But in another way, it is actually worse or the most dismaying or demoralizing on some level.

I think I will accept that that headline comes with the implied caveat. out of like in seasons in which he's actually played right probably i think that's fine but i take your broader point which is like uh you know at least he's out there he's out there and i'm rumbling against my mariners although on and or anner nanner didn't matter did it but yeah i i wonder very much like what is next year going to look like for him and will there be you know with the full, healthy, normal, off-season, fingers crossed, various bits of wood-knocked, you know, can there be something approaching, not a classic trout season? I think we're, you know, we're optimists at heart, but we're also realistic on some level, right?

We engage in a level of optimism that's defensible. He's not going to look like he did in all likelihood. Now, we were like, will he hit home runs? And I'll note that while he hasn't gotten to 400, he did decide to hit that one against the Mariners, which feels like you goaded him into trying to. Yeah. Yeah, he had gone more than 120 plate appearances without a home run until that one. Yeah.

Yeah. And so I wonder. I wonder what it's going to look like. And I wonder, you know, what are you rooting for, right? Are you rooting for less available, but more emphatically himself or more available but diminished? And, you know, there could be a sweet spot in between where he is just like a respectable contributor to the team. He's not in the like pool zone. But he's, you know, he's clearly a guy on the back nine, right?

Golf reached for golf there. It's surprising. But I just don't know. I just don't know what the what the future holds for him. Bradley Woodrum just wrote a piece for baseball perspective is about the hitters who have seen the hardest pitches this year. Not hardest in terms of difficulty, but in terms of speed. And not just looking at who has seen the fastest fastballs,

but across all pitch types, who's just seen the hardest stuff. And it's actually Mike Trout, which has to do partly, I guess, with the types of pitches that he's seeing the pitch mix, but also does suggest that pitchers still respect him on some level. Yeah. Like he still command some, he's still intimidating, I guess, when they see him out there, which is a good sign, I guess. Maybe it's just purely reputational, but there has been some predictive value.

I remember Rob Arthur looking at this back in the day for BP, just how someone's being pitched can tell you something about how he is going to play and how good he still. is because pitchers and teams they have some sense of that. Scouting reports, if they pay attention to them, might say to give this guy a wide berth or whatever. And so, yeah, maybe that's good. And maybe that even accounts for the fact that or part of why he hasn't been so great is that they are still pitching him tough. But this piece that Blum wrote, it is sort of sad because Trout seems to be in denial, at least outwardly, about having suffered any decline. And he says, I've got five more years on the contract. A lot of years.

That's what fuels me. I feel like I've got a lot left in my tank, and I know when it's right, I can be the best. And maybe he could, but what if it isn't right? Like, that's the switch that has to flip in your mind as an aging athlete, I guess, is that, like, when it's right, at some point you have to concede that it's not going to be right anymore, not right in the way that it once was, or it's not going to be right regularly. Maybe for a game here, a swing there, a week there, it'll be right, and you'll be back to being the best. But it just doesn't last, and maybe the periods when it's right get shorter and shorter.

Yeah. He says he can still be an MVP caliber player, no doubt. said, there's got to be some doubt. I mean, there's got to be some doubt. I know that as an athlete, maybe you don't want to acknowledge the doubt to yourself or to others. Maybe you're motivated by this and all, but still, I don't know. And even the Angels interim manager, Ray Montgomery, who Sam Blum says, has long sung Trout's praises and expressed belief in Trout, the quote from him is, he's still very productive, but it's not MVP Mike from 10 years ago. But if you ask anybody or watch anybody as they progress in their career, if you hold them to the standards of their best

years, I think you're going to get that drop off. Absolutely true. But even he is not pretending that MVP Mike is still here or is going to be back. So I don't know. You know, Trouts, he talks about like he has stretches when it feels right and then he loses it. And he's been talking about this mechanical issue, which is described in the story as his back. side collapsing, which makes it sound like a glass ass syndrome situation. Yeah, it's not actually that. It's, you know, I guess like his back half, his lower half is dropping, and then his head is moving back, and then it's harder to recognize pitches, and then his swing is on more of an uphill plane, and that's why he says he's striking out more and not making hard contact as much, but

yeah, he talks about just being in the cage, feeling like he recaptured it, then losing it again, being frustrated, being motivated, fighting to get out of this. But he says, I feel like I can get back to myself. I've got the fire in me to work hard this offseason to get back. I mean, look, what do we expect this guy to say? You know, I take your point. I think having the manager, interim manager, have some amount of clarity about it. It's a useful. It's instructive in terms of how the angels are thinking about how they might deploy trout. It's so hard for me to imagine, well, it's okay, so put it this way. It's like, you know, we tend to think about the baseball playing population or the pro baseball playing population

as like guys in affiliated ball. And, you know, we'll, we'll include in that guys playing high level pro baseball in weeks in Asia, right? So we think about that. And that, and that group, we pick apart with ferocity at times. And I think, you know, not you and I, we're sweet as can be, you know, we're a piece of pecan pie. But, but in general, like, their performance is so heavily scrutinized. And it can be easy within the context of that to forget, like, how even the, the worst guy in affiliated ball is so much better than like, all but the other guys in affiliated ball. And sure, maybe there's some, you know, amount of permeability between like the gen pop, you know, the

undiscovered phenom and affiliated ball. But like in general, like those are the best guys. Those are going to be the best guys. I can't imagine you're like, I'm one of the best guys. And then you're like Trout. So you're like, no, I'm the best guy. And for a long time,

he was. He was the best guy. with like room to you know to wiggle maybe the best ever through certain ages the best ever the best compared to his peers who were active by like several war in some instances right and so i just think that like the the size of the gap between you and second place or you and like the median major leaguer, you and replacement level, the size of that gap, those gaps, I think it has to be baked into the amount of time it takes you to have like a come to Jesus for lack of a better term, right? There's value in having an honest conversation with yourself

about where you're at. And on some level, I would imagine in a part of his heart and psyche that he maybe doesn't talk about with anybody but his family, not even the angels, but like his wife. When you are the best for so long and then you're this version, like, I bet there is a, you feel that difference pretty profoundly, but being able to articulate it to yourself, being able to say it out loud to yourself, to your family. Then being able to talk about it publicly, I'm not saying you're given in the business, Ben. You're not given him the business.

You love Mike Trout. Of course. You mourn the diminishment of Mike Trout. But I guess I just, I'm not surprised that there would be, you know, an effort on his part to hold on to an impression of himself from years ago or even just like a, hey, you know, I've had. bad injuries over the years. And in some of those years, I've, when I've been healthy, still been recognizable as Mike Trout, even though I haven't been on the field very much at all. So I don't know, man, it makes me sad. Makes me sad where Mike Trout's at, you know? Yes. He could try to harness these doubts, fuel for the fire, as he said. It could be

motivating for him. Sure. Or even if it's not so adversarial, it's just, yeah, I, I need to believe that I'm still that guy because otherwise, what am I striving for? Am I just going to give up? I want to, you know, even if he's not that guy anymore, he could try to be getting back to that guy. That's okay. I think he does that the only concession, partial concession here is he says, I don't know when he's asked if the backside collapsing, quote unquote, is a product of aging. So he didn't deny that it could be, I guess. The other thing the story notes is that even though he has been playing, he's not necessarily 100%.

And maybe he can't be anymore. And maybe the definition of 100% changes as you get older. It's just 100% of what you can still be at that point, right? And so... Brother, I have spent this entire week just like on my ass come the end of the day because of back pain. Like, do... Well, I hope it's not collapsing. Minished.

the ass isn't made out of glass my back might be you know I have to entertain that possibility but yeah it's like I've been grappling with a lot of being in your late 30s this week you know and trout has not played in the field

since April because he got hurt at the end of April he missed a month then he came back and he's been deaching ever since and I assumed that was more precautionary than anything but the story does say due to lingering soreness after tweaking his surgically repaired left meniscus. So the sort of fatalism that I and maybe a lot of people had when he got hurt

early this year. And I figure, you know, it's like gallows humor almost season over, right? And then like if he even makes it back at all, then you're pleasantly surprised, which I was when he came back. Right. But even though he's back, maybe he's not back, back, and not just the back half, the backside. But maybe that knee is still bothering him. And maybe that is taking a toll. on the power and the production. So I guess you could still hold out some hope and say maybe next year, then he will not be bothering him anymore.

The only point at which it becomes a problem, I think, you know, obviously if he has a poohol's phase and it's kind of tracking toward that, just a long tale to the career where he's not nearly the player he was anymore. But when a player sometimes refuses to change because they are still somewhat in denial. And that happens with pitchers a lot.

They lose some stuff and they see themselves as a power pitcher and they're just not, they don't have the power anymore. Right. It's, hey, you need to be more of a finesse guy. Or maybe you need to stay away from the heart of the plate or you need to throw different pitches or something. And sometimes it takes a while for them to make that transition. And there are plenty of examples of guys who've done that.

And they have like a Frank Tanana phase where they're a flamethrower and then more of a finesse guy, and they could still be good in both phases. But sometimes you kind of have to cross that rubicon, and it's tough to do mentally, even if it's necessary physically. This story does say, the angels have approached Trout

about making swing changes surrounding his leg kick and hip placement, and while he has been open to them, he's yet to actually implement those changes. I've seen also some questioning of his training routine, and is he lifting too heavy? he going too hard because this is what he used to do and maybe his body can't handle it anymore now i'm not saying that the angels recommending swing changes that necessarily they're

right or that they have illustrious illustrious i combined i combined lustrous and illustrious yes into one word uh that's not a real word though well close but like importantly wrong not a not a storied history put it that way mike trout maybe knows better about hitting than the I'm open to that possibility too. But this is when change of scenery comes into play. I'm not saying he's going to change scenery because he's resisting. Send him to Philly. I want this man on the Philly so bad.

Give me the late career trout, even if it says a part-time player, put him on a playoff team with Bryce Harper. He can go to Eagles games. How fun would that be? Ben, it would be so fun. I want it so bad. And I won't like. happen because why would Philly take that contract on? I don't think Artie's going to pay that whole thing down.

But yeah. And Trout hasn't wanted to go, obviously, when he's had opportunities to push for it. And he's resigned there and extended there and everything. But that's when sometimes it does take a change of scenery because then you realize, oh, okay, maybe I actually do need to change something because I'm circling the drain here, professionally speaking. or it's just it's a wake-up call or it's a different messenger or it's just easier for you to get out of that old mindset when you're in new surroundings. So I don't know if he'll ever get to that point.

Anyway, I don't enjoy being a Mike Trout doomer. I'm just, it's, it's, you know, we talked about him all the time on the way up and we have to talk about him sometimes on the way down. I just, I wish the way down weren't quite as steep. It feels bad not only because, you know, we got to have this player we enjoyed watching so much. And the weather thing was so charming and what have you. But like I, you know, I want the downside of a guy's career to be easy, particularly when he is sort of like a one organization dude and has made this insistent

preference known, like, no, I want to stay here. I enjoy being here. I want there to be like cosmic reward for that inclination because I think it's a nice. one. I think it's, it's nice when a guy's like, no, this is my team. I'm going to stick with it. I want to give fans a player who they can just buy the jersey and they don't have to worry about that. And I, you know, I don't know how many people are queuing up for that anymore. Although, what else are you going to do? You know, like, part of the Phillies thing is like the vibe in the clubhouse, like, raw milk and seeming pronatalist tendencies aside, like the vibe in that clubhouse seems freaking immaculate right now.

Like Harrison Bader's having the time of his life. Are you watching Phillies game? I mean, it helps that they like just kick the crap out of the Mets for a couple of games. But are you watching any of these Phillies games, Ben? Yeah, they're having a great time out there. They're having a good time. Consistently fun for a few years now. Yeah, this despite the fact that like, you know,

Wheeler's done for the year, Turner's sideline, Bowman is sidelined with a cyst in his shoulder. that seems how much would you worry that it was spider eggs i'd worry a lot i don't think it is that's i would worry in a way that is clearly irrational but i think i would worry i'd be like are there little spider eggs in there is it a little and are there a little the eggs less the problem than the fact that eggs mean little spiders would you worry about there being little spiders in your shoulder i don't think that possibility would occur to me quickly but now it will so thanks for Sorry. I'm sorry. Okay. I have some emails, some Friday emails that we can answer here. There's one more thing that's been on my mind. And it's going to try to tie it to sports.

But I think I can. I think this will be interesting. But it's in the air. So, you know, there's this pervasive idea of the death of expertise and questioning of expertise. There was an actual book with that title back in 2017. But the idea and the effects have been sweeping more so since then. And I was reading an article just on Thursday in the Wall Street Journal headlined The Rise of Conspiracy Physics. And it's all about how people are questioning academic physics. And you have these streamers who have developed big audiences by just very publicly vociferously questioning academics in physics. and calling it a corrupt establishment and that sort of thing.

Physics? Physics, yes. And this is happening, of course, across the government, across all sorts of scientific fields. There was an article back in May and the New Yorker called The Revolt Against Expertise that was mainly centered on public health. So, you know, this idea is very much in the air sweeping society, government, science, etc. And look, I will stipulate here that experts are not infallible.

Experts should be questioned. Some skepticism is always healthy. It's a bedrock of science to question things and don't take things for granted and investigate. And, you know, there are times when people in these fields do not always have the best interests of everyone at heart. Or they're just plain wrong. They make mistakes. they make missteps, misstatements, etc. I think not usually, not typically,

but there are times when that happens and then that calls everyone else into question. But there are also things that are just baseless and just conspiracy theories that have no grounding in fact or anything. And then we end up with this just asking questions mentality or worse, just making accusations about things really without any evidence.

And so I've been wondering why this has not translated to sports or whether it has and to baseball specifically and to Sabermetrics even. And I have a few thoughts on that. But basically it's like, okay, look, measles is making a comeback. Why isn't batting average and RBI making a comeback is essentially what I'm saying here? One is much more serious than the other, to be clear. Yes. But I'm wondering, why are we not getting that rollback, that kind of retrograde? Why do these people think they know what they're talking about more so than we have in the past when this seems to be sweeping so many other fields? Do you have an initial reaction?

And then I have some thoughts. I do, but it's mostly about, okay, so I want to think about your broader question for a second while you talk because I need to turn it over in my head a little bit. But before I do that, so like what about physics in particular are they disputing, though? I'm sorry, you can't, you can't introduce this and expect me to move on to what, to war? Yeah. Oh, why isn't anyone questioning fit? I mean, people question fit, but like, what, no, I'm sorry. What about, do they, do they not think that, like, what have any?

Really? So this seems to be centered mainly on high-level conceptual, theoretical physics. Okay. So they're, like, going after string theory or whatever the hell? Yes, exactly. String theory and various quantum mechanics and things that, frankly, I'm not even qualified to weigh in on the merits of the critiques or anything. but it's not just sort of a civil, here's my response to your peer-reviewed paper with my peer-reviewed paper kind of thing. It's more, you know, throwing bombs on social media sort of thing.

And so, you know, science denial is not new, obviously, and conspiracy theories are not new. And this stuff is as old as civilization. Sure. Maybe it's older than civilization. Maybe that's why it took so long for civilization to start. Right. But I think it's been amplified in a lot of cases. just because of social media, YouTube,

just the whole media ecosystem today for better and worse, less gatekeeping, you know, so you can kind of develop an audience without credentials, really. And again, credentials not automatically mean that you know what you're talking about. And there are people with credentials who operate in bad faith and falsify stuff

or even, you know, in the best of intentions, make mistakes with imperfect information, or, you know, they have incentives at stake, their career, their reputation. Obviously, there's been like a replication crisis in science. And so these things are worth talking about. But, yeah, it goes further than that in some cases. And I don't think it's really helpful to suggest that qualifications and experience and credentials mean nothing or that they're actually bad.

And so here's, I guess, my initial thoughts about why we are. haven't seen this in sports or whether we have. I guess my first thought would be that we actually did sort of see this, that maybe this is what Sabermetrics was when it surfaced and when it started to come to the fore. This kind of did happen. I mean, it wasn't on YouTube and Twitter or whatever because those things didn't exist at the time. But there was very much a questioning of the classic traditional credentials and the appeals to authority and just the experience of I played the game. I've been in the game forever. I was good at this sport and therefore I understand how this sport works better than you.

Maybe this has already happened. Maybe it's just that in this case it's like the nerds took over and maybe in these other cases it's the nerds being taken down or I guess certain nerds being taken down by other nerds or not. nerds? I don't know. It doesn't map on perfectly. But maybe that's the idea that the traditional ruling order of sports and baseball kind of already was overturned. And it just so happened that the enemies at the gates in that case kind of did have a point and kind of did know what they were talking about in a lot of respects, not every respect. But merely having played the game was was not by itself sufficient to understand every intricacy of the game and that maybe that was actually in need of a correction. So that was my first thought that, you know, like, why isn't

this happening? It seems like it's happening everywhere else. Well, maybe it already happened. It sports, maybe it preceded this larger movement. It was just that the death of a certain sort of sports expertise preceded the rise of another sort of sports expertise. that is still largely ascendant. I think it's useful to maybe clarify or describe more precisely, like, where do we, where do we see the expertise being sort of settled and respected versus where is their pushback? Because I think that, like, you're right that Sabermetrics was a, in some respects, a rejection of received, wisdom and a desire to more precisely quantify, like, what makes a player good, or maybe even more precisely than that, what makes them valuable, which are linked concepts, but they're not quite

the same, right? So there was this, like, we're going to push back on the orthodoxy of the game, and that pushback is being done with an eye toward, like, rigor and quantification and precision, right? And I think that, and then there was pushback against that, right? There was a defensive response from people already in the game who, I think it would be a mistake to say that they were not themselves experts. They were just experts who expressed an understanding of baseball using different language. They were wrong sometimes, although they have been proven right in other regards as our ability to quantify and measure has advanced, right? So, like, just as an example, like, seam shifted wake is a phenomenon that I think,

and I don't think I'm alone in this opinion, I think that, like, pitching coaches understood long before we could quantify it, right? the ability to identify a fastball as being good in a way that its raw characteristics would not suggest was something that like pitching coaches had their eye on for a long, long time. And then I think some of what they were perceiving as like have a heater with good traits, we were like, oh, what they were keyed in on was seam shifted wake. And now we can quantify that, right? Just as an example.

And it's not to say that like everyone was right about it. everything and that there weren't fastballs that like, you know, pitching coaches thought were good because they were really hard, but actually they had like, like, oh, shape. And so, like, they were wrong about some stuff. I don't mean to say they were right about everything. But, like, I do think that there's more push and pull there than was sometimes recognized in, like, Sabre 1.0, right? So, so I think that there's, like, this push and pull. But I do think that there's, like, a useful distinction to be drawn between like the pushback that Sabermetrics as a concept gets in like discourse versus the adoption and embrace of it in institutions right and this is maybe a good

parallel to your point to like the scientific discourse because like there isn't pushback in front offices against Sabermetrics anymore I think that there has been like a very productive expansion of the notion of data within front offices, right? I think that there was it at times like an over-correction on the part of early Saber metrics to reject perceived expertise from like long-timers, like guys who'd been in the game. They know stuff, right? And I think that some, not all. I mean, I'm not. Everyone, mm-hmm, relax. But, like, like, I do think that there was a defensive posture on the part of the nerds and sometimes a discounting of experience from old timers that was valuable, right, that they were seeing something,

right? They had data to offer. We just needed to figure out, like, how to conceptualize that data. And then, you know, how to, like, apply rigor to their experience. And so, again, like, I think that everyone was defensive and a little haughty in the beginning, and I think that people have gotten better about, like, coming to the table from their respective areas of expertise and experience and saying, like, we can have a, we can have a push and pull in a conversation and understand that, like, just because it's not being measured by Hawkeye doesn't mean that it's not useful to our understanding of the game, right? So this is kind of a long-winded way of saying, Like, I think that that, that, within the, you know, the four walls of a front office, no rejection of Sabre to be had.

But all you have to do is turn on sports talk radio. Yes. Or Pat McAfee or PTI. And the perception of analytics, you know, sort of broadly understood, not just in baseball, but across sports, is, I think, far from settled in terms of its adoption. Now, I think the average fan is more open to analytics than they were 20 years ago, 15 years ago, 10 years ago. This is an area where I think within the baseball context, statcast has been helpful. I know that, like, you know, are stat cast that's perfect? No.

Are there quibbles to be had? Of course. But, like, here's the thing. I think that the average fan, I'm going to do a swear, and I think you should leave it in. So, you know, parents listening with your kids, watch out is going to be a big one. I think that fans being able to say it's so fucking cool how hard he hit that has been helpful to the adoption of stats, right? Does that mean that every fan is like, you know, obsessed with war or inclined to believe analytics tells them anything? No, but I do think that like the average fan is savvier about this stuff and is more open to it than they used to be.

And some of that, you know, it's just that it's been around for a while. Some of that is how broadcasts talk about it. Some of it is that if you want to understand how your team is constructing their roster and why they're doing what they're doing, you kind of have to have a basic understanding of it, even if its only purpose is for you to tell the nerds that run the Yankees that they're too dependent on analytical. Right, right. So I don't know what voice that was, but it was the voice that I had in that moment. So all of that to say, like, I think there has been pushback. I think that it has been constant. It's just the nerds won on the team side. Yeah, I think you're right. Yes, because I started from the premise of saying, why hasn't this happened in sports or why doesn't it happen? And then I started to question that. Well, maybe it does happen or it has constantly been happening. And that's just been. written off a bit because the decision makers have not been swayed by it. It's just, it's lots of fans. It's lots of people on social media.

It's people on airwaves even, but it's ultimately not the people who are in charge of how teams are run and how players are selected. That's the difference, I guess. And now, I don't know whether that pushback has gotten any more vehement lately. I wouldn't, I would say over time it's gotten less resistance, obviously, just because Yeah. Yeah, because it has so taken root in baseball and in sports more broadly, then you can't dismiss it as easily. And you sort of sound more like a crank if you're the one railing against it, which is not to say that people don't.

I think it totally depends on the sport, though, right? I think that this is where we sit in a fortunate position as people who are primarily concerned with baseball. We have the advantage of time, right? I think that these conversations are far more contentious and contested in other sports, right? Like, the way that people react to, I mean, it's got, it has gotten better. I don't mean to say that it's, like, as bad as it was. But the way that people used to talk to Bill Barnwell was out of control, right? They'd look at Aaron Chats and be like, who is this?

They'd say words that I will not say because they are rude and, you know, inappropriate. it but like they'd be like who the hell are these nerds to tell us about so i i think that some of our perception of it is absolutely colored by the fact that we happen to be professionally interested in baseball and the nerds have won and the nerds are still like fighting a fight um in in football right like basketball's maybe the the most the next most settled question mark i don't even know if i I think that's right. But I think I think that's right. Of the big four, I guess.

Of the big four. Yeah. I don't know what they're doing in soccer, you know. Yeah. They're doing some of this stuff in just about every sport. They're mostly flopping. Everywhere, constantly. Everywhere falling down all the time.

Yeah. But, no, I think that the pushback also has taken a different form where it's not about questioning whether it works, but questioning whether it worked too well and saying that we just like, we dislike the analytics. not because they're baseless, but because look what you've massacred my sport. You know, look what you've done to my boy, baseball. Right, right. And in other sports, too, to some extent, I mean, if you're sick of how many three-pointers

there are in the NBA, then you're blaming analytics. So maybe it's morphed into that where, okay, we concedes that this works, or at least that it is shaping the game, but maybe it's just making the game worse from a spectator perspective. And so you can go after it in that perspective. And you might even be right. There might be some merit to your point. Too many three-pointers, too many homers, too many strikeouts, whatever it is. It's not completely off base to tie that to analytics and say, well, maybe this is more efficient, but that doesn't mean it's more fun. And yeah, that's not so out there that you can't have that conversation. So I think that's part of it. I also think that a third thing, well,

the reason maybe why you don't see backsliding, I guess, or kind of a flip-flop in front offices is because you have concrete results. You can measure frequently and accurately whether it, quote, unquote, works. And you have wins and losses, and you have dollars and cents. And you don't just have a – I was just about to say. Yeah, you don't have a winner loss every four years when you have an election or however many years, you have a win and last every day for months of a year. And so you quickly get

feedback, and it's hard to deny that. If this works, you're going to win more games or you're going to win the same games but make more money or, you know, whatever your primary goal is as an owner. And so as an owner, you're not going to jettison your quants because of vibes or because someone on Twitter was angry at them because you can see that it's paying dividends and you can measure that in some way. And that's not to suggest that every, you know, analytics heavy front office is, like, actually good. Right.

Sometimes that doesn't work and you need new people in there too, but not necessarily a wholesale different approach. But I think that's a big part of the reason because in these other fields, either they're just so complex that it's hard to at least get instant feedback about what's working. Okay, what happens if we change this policy? Will we immediately be able to assess whether that was bad or good? Maybe not. Maybe we'll need to wait some time to see.

Or maybe some other thing will, there will be a confounding factor and it'll look like it works for the wrong reasons or whatever. It's just so much more complex because baseball is, you know, zero-sum game and kind of a closed system. It's complicated, but it's not complicated compared to an entire country and everything that happens in it. And also in politics, in government, let's say, hopefully you hope that people are actually trying to get the best outcomes, but also they're trying to accrue power and they're trying to persuade people, and it's a popularity contest, and it is vibes-based.

Like, you can win in that arena by persuading people that you're right, even if you're wrong, whereas in sports or in baseball, there is that constant check on you that's, well, I can keep claiming that I'm right. But if my team loses year after year after year, and maybe you have that in politics or public health or whatever it is because there's vaccine skepticism and then there's a measles outbreak and at some point you can't deny that there's. a connection between the two, but you can for a while. When they reach the breaking point on denial there. Well, yeah, and that persists because then you get entrenched and you have your own interests at stake and your reputation and your position and all of that. And with Sabre metrics, you know, there were upstarts who were kind of rating the established centers of power without the typical credentials in some respects.

Maybe they had more impressive credentials, but they didn't have the credentials that had been valued historically. Right. And they came with data and with real research and objective backing. Now, you know, people who are vaccine skeptics, they'll cite studies too. And it's just that they're cherry picking or they're just not well-designed studies or, you know, whatever, right? But Sabermetrics, now maybe we're biased. We're saber metric sorts and we were swayed by this and and have been purveyors of it, and generally we feel like, well, we're searching for actual knowledge about baseball here, and we're showing our work and justifying these opinions and recommendations and everything. And there are people who are conspiracy theorists who some are bad faith and some are just misguided and think that's what they're doing and would tell you that that's what they're doing, but I would disagree. So I guess to say that, well, we have studies on our side, well, people on the other side would also say that they have studies on their side.

And then we would disagree about whose studies are actually better designed or a bigger sample or, you know, a meta study instead of a single study, et cetera. So I think that's a lot of what it comes down to, though, is that you get the constant feedback, you get to assess whether you're right. And ultimately that billionaire who owns the team as an investment and wants to make money from that investment or a reputational boost because their team is good, they're not going to tolerate just, hey, let's throw this all overboard because someone said so semi persuasively. But if like if the team is winning, then you're going to keep doing what you've been doing. Yeah, I also think that, and this maybe maps less cleanly onto the, the, you know, vaccine denial analogy, but, you know, we should, we should also be sure not to discount the part that, like, Sabermetrics coming in at the same time as, you know, front offices being able to make a persuasive argument to their ownership group that, like, not only can we build a better baseball team, but we can build a really cheap baseball team. Because we know something that other people don't know, right? And there's this market inefficiency, and we've identified it, and we can exploit it. I think that it did a lot to establish credibility, maybe, for lack of a better term, with ownership groups.

Because, sure, I think, you know, some of those teams, like, were very invested, are very invested in winning, maybe not monetarily, but in terms of, like, the way that they view the team's purpose is, to seek championships, right? But I also think that it put a lot of executives in a position to say, like, well, we can build you a consistent contender, but what we can really build you is a consistently cheap team, or at least a cheaper team, one that is properly resource aligned for your understanding of what this project is,

which is like, yeah, to own a baseball team, but also to have an investment. and maybe to have like a front porch to a real estate empire, right, or whatever it is. And so, you know, I think that there is a lot about Saber metrics that is good and positive. It has expanded our understanding of baseball. It has helped us to more accurately identify players who are good or to say with greater specificity how they're good or why they're good. But, you know, we should like, we should be real about the money part of it too. Right. And I think that that has a big role to play. And part of my confidence in that is that we are seeing as other sports sort of go through their analytics revolutions, quote unquote, we are seeing many of the exact same conversations about labor replicated in a way where I'm like, no, we already did it. Like you can make better choices or you can use what baseball went.

through to understand like how these arguments are about value are going to be deployed on the labor side like learn learn from us and it's like no running backs are stupid and i understand the fungibility and then you're like but what about derrick henry and then derrick henry fumbles and then they lose that game and it's like i don't know do you have like what how would your version of war account for anyway yeah sometimes you take it too far and it's like okay you let Sequin Barclay leave and then Sequin Barclay has an incredible season and suddenly everyone is- I love so much that you can talk about this now. Ben, I, it's just a light, you know. I, I do miss that I could have, I could have told you anything about football and you would have been like, yeah, sure,

fine, whatever, you know, it's like college baseball for all you know, but, but it is nice because you're right. Like, and the worst part of it is, that was just like on HBO when they did it. You know, it was just there, and it's like, oh, geez, I did not watch, sorry and interrupt you, but I did not watch any of the Bills, um, hard knocks because, and I normally watch hard knocks. Like, I enjoy hard knocks, uh, generally. But I like, you know, I had to wait to watch it because of other stuff. And then like, I heard that it was boring. And I'm like, well, sure, they're all going to be boring now. We're never going to get a good hard knocks again. This is a take I have because they, they, They saw what happened to the Giants when they did that pre-draft one. And no one's ever going to say shit again on hard knocks because it's just like every time Sequin scores a touchdown, we just have that, you know, playing in our heads over and over again. Yes. Over and over again. Yeah.

And so there was some solid grounding to the idea that, yeah, running backs are largely interchangeable or fungible or they decline quickly, et cetera. But there are some who are great. There are a couple who don't. Yeah. And so not only is it fun, I mean, there are parallels between the decline of the running back and the decline of the starting pitcher and, hey, this was such a fun position and these guys were stars. And now we find out that maybe they're not that valuable. It's not the same as pitching exactly, but sometimes those discussions run along parallel lines. But, yeah, sometimes you figure, oh, maybe we took it too far.

And it's an equals one situation with this player or that player. Maybe the larger takeaway is true, but that doesn't mean that we should just, you know, throw a dart and hit a running back and whoever it is, then great they'll play for us. There is actually some separation there. And I guess you do see that sometimes with teams. I was trying to think of some teams that have kind of thrown off the mantle of Sabermetrics or rejected it and said, no, we're going back proudly to where we were before. I don't know if that has happened exactly. But you see that in some cases, like with the Astros, for instance, where they were like at the forefront of every trend when it came to analytics and Sabermetrics and took it too far in some respects and also had the cheating scandal and everything else.

And then, you know, they had James Click and then after James Click, they had Dana Brown and there's more influence from former players and the owner taking the reins a little more himself. And, you know, will that be good for the organization in the long term? I don't know. Hey, they're still winning the AOS as we speak. Excuse you. They are tied for first place with my Seattle Mariners. Tied for first. Important distinction.

My apologies. I should apologize. They played too long. They played extra endings back to back nights to do that. Oh, yeah. That's what they did. They played a lot of extra innings this year. They've been the extra innings team.

But yeah, so maybe that's a case where, like, your former front office is, like, disciplined and exiled. Maybe that's a little bit different, but they had a lot of success on the field under that front office. And maybe there's also just, okay, you're going to do your prospect hugging and budget cutting. And we'll just hire Dave Dombrowski and we'll let him sign a bunch of great free agents or trade for them. And then we'll be a good team because we're not going to sweat the small stuff as much. So that's a way that you could kind of go in the other direction as well. But, yeah, you know, we're not seeing, like, forget about Fangraph's war and Aaron Judge in Cal Rale. Like, he has more ribbies or whatever.

I mean, you know, not that no one mentions that sort of stuff, but the voters who will be voting on those awards, they probably won't really be looking at that as much as, you know, maybe a fan might say. or no one's like calling for let's go back to evaluating players based on the back of the baseball cards. That's so much. Yeah, as a tiebreaker, you could look at clutch as we did last week. Sure, but I do, I do think we need to be clear about, like, who we're talking about. Yes. Right. And I do think we occupy, like, we occupy a particular niche.

And it feels like the dominant one because it is how teams think about constructive. their rosters. But in terms of like the people who consume baseball day to day, it is not the dominant one. Right. Right. It just isn't. And like, I don't know. I sometimes, this might be way too navel-gazy. I don't feel defensive on behalf of analytics. I really don't most of the time, you know? And I think it's the right answer. But maybe part of it is that I am not like I'm such a special sensitive girl, you know, gazes out, her windows, the fall breaks. But I think I am maybe more than your average bear sensitive to the aesthetic concerns, right? Although I think that, you know, the people who write about baseball from an analytics perspective, I think, are in general

in much the same way that the average baseball fan is more tuned to analytics. I think the average analytically inclined baseball writer is more sensitive to aesthetics than they use. to be. Like, I do think there's been a, I'll call it a course correction, because I actually think that that's what it is, right? Where it's like, well, we like watching baseball too, right? And so, you know, we don't need to be so ruthlessly efficient that it's not fun anymore. At least a lot of us think that. But maybe it's because, like, the aesthetic piece of it has always been interesting to me. And again, I'm not alone in this. I just think that it is a thing that I think a lot about. But maybe it's because of that. Or maybe it's because,

front office is one, but it's like I don't feel insecure about the state of like analytics as a as an endeavor. I just really don't, you know. I think the victory has been so sweeping in terms of how teams think about constructing their rosters that we just don't have to worry about it anymore. Now what we have to worry about is it being used for evil. Yes. You know, like now, and I think that that has allowed a conversation about, you know, what, what do we want to incentivize from an aesthetic perspective and how do we accomplish that, you know, within an analytic framework more generally, but, but also, like, where are we willing to accept inefficiency in the name of, like, having a better day at the ballpark? I think that that's a good direction for the conversation to go. I don't think that that's like retrenchment in terms of like expertise or or what have you.

It's like, okay, so with the victory as sweeping as it is, how do we find our way to a version of the game that we enjoy watching? And I think that, you know, for all the criticism that I could level at the league and I have been known to have some notes from time to time, I think that in general, like the league has been a good experimenter in this regard, right? which isn't to say that it's always worked, but I think a willingness we've talked about this before to like not be too precious about it from a rules perspective is good. It is also like an instinct and an impulse that needs checking of its own from time to time. And I think that because they are also mindful of owners' bottom lines, it is not like done purely for aesthetic purposes, right? Their approach to the game and its rules and its incentives are, sometimes about improving the product for fans and sometimes about putting more money in

owner's pockets. And so, like, there is a give and take and a push and pull there, too. But I don't know. I just don't feel. And maybe it's because of when I came along, you know, like, I didn't have to, I didn't get shoved into a locker, right? You know, when I joined fan graphs, like, we, we already had people working in front offices who had written for the site, you know, the shift had already happened on.

the team side. And so, you know, I can acknowledge that I didn't, I didn't have to fight that initial fight. And I do try to remember that when I'm having conversations with people who've been around longer because I think that sometimes folks who have been around since day one can have a sort of prickly posture about this stuff. There can be a defensiveness. And that rubs people the wrong way because it's like, well, relax. But also, like, I want to be mindful of like the locker shoving phase and that I didn't live through it. But, you know, I've had to deal with other stuff. I am a lady.

But I didn't have that. You know, I didn't have to fight that fight. So I try to, you know, I try to encourage people to, like, have humility about the whole project. Because at the end of the day, to your earlier point, none of this shit actually matters. I mean, it does. It's like people's livelihoods and it's an industry and it's this thing that's very precious to us. And we imbue it with meaning. And so it is important, but, like, it isn't, you know, we're not fighting an actual war.

We're just talking about war, you know, as an acronym. Exactly, yes. And everyone is these days because war, the concept of replacement level has just permeated so many fields. And you see it in politics, too, just trying to assess politician performance over replacement just based on what the baseline expectation would be in their area or whatever it is. And it's just, it's not as neat as it is in baseball. And there's plenty of debate about it in baseball and ways. that the implementation of it could be improved. But I think one big difference is that in politics,

you get an election every several years, right? Or every couple years, depending on what type of election you're talking about, and then everyone argues about what that means for the next few years, and you can interpret it every which way. But ultimately, your sample that you're predicting things based on or analyzing things based on,

it's just going to be a lot smaller than in baseball, let's say, where you're playing 162 games every single season. And there are other reasons why it's messier and more complex, but I think that's a big one. And I think that, yeah, the big difference that we're identifying here is just who's in power and who isn't, because maybe the same things are being said, but it's that the people who want to roll back vaccines or clean energy or whatever it is are getting to do that. They are in charge, whereas in baseball, the people who are saying the equivalent, for baseball, no one's given them the keys, at least to this point. And so they are still saying those things, but the people in power are not really listening or adopting those

ideas. You do have, say, Rob Manfred echoing that owner's line and agreeing with it about analytics being an arms race to nowhere. But even then, he wasn't questioning whether analytics makes sense or something. He was just saying that there aren't big competitive advantages anymore, you know, whether that's true or not, I don't know, but he's saying they're smaller than they used to be, and so everyone is just going, pulling out all the stops to try to get these eke out these little edges. And meanwhile, the sport is suffering for it in some respect. So even then, he was not really questioning whether there's some actual grounding to it. And, you know, it's a human endeavor like everything else. And so we have moments where we have

I had profound frustration with Rob Manfred in some respects because he's doing, he has done exactly the same sort of expertise denial that makes us so crazy when we encounter vaccine denial, right? Where it's like, oh, the ball's the same. No, it's not, my guy. Like, no, you, no, no, right? And so we've had where I've just been like, do you, I'm lifting up my keyboard. I'm getting animated about a thing that's like years old at this point. But I just remember there were times where he was like, I don't know what you could possibly be. Oh, that was immensely frustrating.

And I was like, no. Yeah. And even then you could come back because there was so much data to the contrary. Right. Because because you have thousands of batted balls, because we could just point to the way that these things were behaving and saying, They're not traveling as far when they're being hit, and there are just so many trials, and there's so much instant feedback that we could instantly call BS convincingly enough that eventually they formed a study, they did a study with a task force or whatever, and finally conceded that, yeah, okay, there was something going on with the ball. But we knew that, those of us who acknowledged it, and could demonstrate it, because there was just so much feedback that was proofing. that, at least to our satisfaction. So hopefully this was not too much of a stretch or too far

a field. This is something I'm pondering and I keep coming across this and thinking about how it does or doesn't map onto what we typically talk about. So I hope that was interesting for others. And if you have thoughts, please write in. I think part of the value of the thing as a sport. You know, I've said this about sports generally. I've said it about baseball before. This has been like an opinion of mine for a long time. It was an area of academic interest. It gives us a testing ground to find our way through these bigger conversations, right? Because it is a microcosm of society. And it's a really fun one, right? I think part of why it maintains its power as a site of meaning, of meaning making for people is that, like, you can take a breather in between

heavier conversations because that's not the organizing principle of the activity and see this incredible thing, right? You can experience sport. It can be a place of community, of emotion, of delight, you know, you get to see a walk off. You get to see like this incredible pitcher do his thing, whatever. But it also does provide this arena for, for Democratic contestation. And if you're interested in an academic treatise on the subject, I encourage everyone to go read my friend Thomas Bunting's book on the subject. He actually finished his PhD, unlike me, wrote a good book about baseball and democracy that everyone should check out.

But I think that it provides us a place to think through this stuff, right? And that's not the way that everyone's engaging with it. I'm not naive about that, right? I don't think the people, there, as we have seen, many, many people who would just as soon not encounter the political part of baseball or sports more generally at all. right even though politics has a way of inserting itself into the game all the time and particularly in the last 24 hours so but i think it can be a useful arena um for people to get practiced with this stuff you know it's not the most immediate way to like help foster democratic citizenship or anything like that but it is a way you know it has that effect in some regard and you know i think sharpening our arguments around this stuff is really important, because, like, there is a skepticism of expertise. I can't get a COVID booster in this state, Ben.

Yeah. I just can't, you know, can still get a flu shot. So, like, don't pay attention to that or if you're junior. But I can't get a COVID booster. I mean, I think if I go to my doctor and get a prescription, I'll be able to. But, like, I can't just go to CVS and get one. So that's a thing. That wasn't true.

Last year, sucks. Yep. All right. I have a few emails here. Okay, here's one from Greg, who says a Patreon supporter, are the Rangers a good team? I haven't been paying attention, but their run differential is the best in the AL West. Have they had especially poor sequencing?

The Rangers have just been a very, very confusing team. But West is just so weird this year, man. It's like a real, it's a real conundrum, a mystery. wrapped in an enigma. The Rangers have been confusing for a few years. They were confusing the year they won the World Series.

They sure were. Every year. They've been streaky. They've looked great at times. They've looked terrible at times. You count them out. And there they are again. This year they've had, gosh,

like three or four times when it was like, oh, they're done. And then everyone's hurt. And suddenly they're back in it and they're the hottest team in baseball. Yeah. It's hard to figure. They are confusing.

because obviously, like, they have a lot of stars and big-name players and high payroll, and they've also had a lot of injuries, and they've had odd underperformance and going from a great offensive team to just a below-average or average offensive team. And, yeah, it's true. They have outscored their opponents by 91 runs, and yet they are 524 winning percentage. Well, you know, their base runs record is not that much better. They're only three games below that, so it's not way out of line. I'm less confused by the performance, like, relative to their run differential than I am just kind of their overall performance, because it does feel like they should be better with the players that they have, and yet now it feels like they should be worse with the injuries that they have and the players they don't have.

So every time I count them out, they do tend to pick themselves up off the mat. I know they had an easy stretch of the schedule, and now they're in a harder stretch, but they're still staying in this thing. Their pitching's good. And so that certainly helps. But, yeah, they're, I mean, I don't find them as confounding as the Astros. Yeah, it is a weird division. They are confounding.

It is a weird division, man. Like, it is just a weird, are they good? I mean, as they are currently constituted with their injuries, I think the answer to that is less so than they were a couple weeks ago. You don't lose Corey Seeger and Marcus Semyon and, like, get better as a team generally. And Nathan Evaldi. And Nathan Evaldi, right? So are they better, are they a good team?

Not relative to what they were a couple of weeks ago. Are they better than I expected them to be given, you know, how their offense performed over the first half of the year. Yeah, their pitching's good. Less good now, though, without Avaldi. Yeah. I don't know. I feel like there are a number of teams,

and the Rangers are definitely in this group. And I'll be clear right about it. I think it's true of the entire A.L. West contingent that might find itself in playoff position, where it just feels like there are a lot of early exit candidates, right? You might scrape your way through to October, but the odds that you're going to be able to, like, sustain, seem limited, low. I don't know.

I'm on a real emotional roller coaster with these mariners, Ben. I am here and there and everywhere. I cannot believe some of the wins, some of the losses similarly confounding, candidly. Leo Rivas, you know, like, you know, you probably were asleep when that happened. I hope you were asleep when Leo Rivas walked. them off with a home run. They put a, they put a graphic on the screen yesterday, and I will admit, I had Thursday night football on a commander's team. I don't know. They're not good either. You should talk about them commanders. No, we shouldn't. You're like, I only want to talk about football

on one of my podcasts, and you're making me talk about it on two of them, and I don't like it. People are probably like, I miss when Ben knew nothing about any other sport. Then they just talked only about baseball. Yeah, I still talked about football when you only knew about one sport. Yeah. I couldn't contribute. to the discussion. Yeah, it tended to be fairly, like, short in its time. I wasn't paying super close attention because I was watching the commanders get their asses handed to them.

But they put a graphic up on the screen at one point during the Mariners game last night about, about Leo Rivas, who, for those who were not watching the Mariners play extra innings, walked off the Cardinals the other night on a Leo Rivas home run, which was exciting, but also surprising, because Leo Rivas has now hit two career big league home runs. And this was his second. And so they put a graphic up about walk off home runs in the first or second home run of a player's career, which was like kind of a mean, it was kind of mean for the home broadcast to put up because I'm like, you don't need to draw attention to the fact this guy never hits home runs.

Although, like, what would you expect? He's 5.8. he's 5'8 150 pounds you know if you want to imagine what it would look like for someone my height to play professional baseball Leo Rivas is like as close as you're going to get except for maybe like

Jorge Barroso on the Diamondbacks but anyway just a delight what a fun little time but I was kind of a mean graphic as the case maybe he was so excited it was so nice there's just like oh look at look at that that's delightful he has 92 plate appearances in the majors

this year and a 135 WRC Plus, and that's fantastic. He's been born. That's a cool. Leo Rivas. I love how I took a question about the Rangers when I was like, what I actually want to talk about is the Seattle Mariners. But guess what?

Half my podcast, so I get to. Yeah, well, the Rangers have had their own unexpected contributors in the absence of some of the stars. Take it back to the actual email. Do it. Do it. Okay, sure. Wyatt Langford has been great.

He was expected to be great. But then you have Michael Hellman, which, like, when I saw Michael Helman's name the other day, I said, who? Who's Michael Hellman? And then suddenly, Michael Helman's everywhere. I'm seeing Michael Helman's name often right. And it's, it's not just the effect of when you hear something and then suddenly you hear it everywhere. He's been in the news constantly because he's like hit five homers. This is a guy who didn't even have particularly impressive AAA stats. He's a 29-year-old rookie outfielder, former 11th round draftee, and comes up and has hit a bunch of big homers. He hit the first.

Grand Slam that the Rangers have hit this season. He robbed a Homer. Like, it's just heroics left and right, Michael Hellman. And I love that guy. I love that archetype of player who you just don't expect that much from. And they come up in the thick of a race and just come up huge for you, the sort of Shane Spencer type just out of nowhere, like hot streak that really bails you out. That's great.

I love it. Fantastic. Yeah. not anticipating that. So, yeah, sometimes if you're short-handed because all your frontliners got hurt, their appendices, appendices, did we decide? I don't remember, almost burst. Appendous. Oh, yeah.

Then, yeah, you need Michael Helman to come up and pick up the slack somehow. So that's been fun. Anyway, are the Rangers good? Yeah, I mean, they're pretty good, I guess. They're pretty good. No one's that good. So just being okay, that's enough to keep them in the mix. and they have the best shot of any team that's not currently in playoff position to end up in playoff position probably.

So despite the Mets, best efforts to blow their spot also anyway. What's up with the Mets? Those Mets are, it's kind of alarming what's going on over there. I mean, only if you're a Mets fan. If you're not a Mets fan, it's probably fine. Are the freaking diamond packs going to end up in a wild card spot? That'd be wild, yeah. Do I need to apply for a universal, like, Fred, for...

Yeah, just to be safe. Why not? I think I might. I think I, just for safety, even though they would not play here until they advanced through the wild card around. But the last time I didn't think that was going to happen, they went to the freaking world series, Ben. Merrill Kelly has helped Texas also.

That's been an important pickup as they have lost other. other pitchers anyway. I enjoy Merrill Kelly. I wish him the best. I wouldn't mind him ending up back in Arizona just because I enjoy watching that guy pitch. Also, we've got to be not only on playoff watch for the Rangers, but on Chris Davis watch with Jake Berger, who is angling for his fourth consecutive season with a 250 batting average.

Oh, boy. Yeah, this is something that came up last December on the podcast when I believe Bauman was filling in for you on a stories we missed last year. Roundup, and one of them was Jake Berger, or we talked about on that episode, Jake Berger's three consecutive seasons with a 250 batting average. And here he is, much like the Rangers, he's been up and down, minor league reset and all the rest. He's batting two, he's batten 246. I mean, this could happen. And I think we talked then about whether this was as fun, because like 250, it's just, it's, it's a rounder number and maybe it's divisible by more things.

Maybe it's easier to end up with a 250 batting average than a 247 and also just 247. It just sounds funnier than 250 maybe. But also like some of those seasons, he was not playing full time. I don't know whether that actually makes it so much more or less improbable that he would do it. But is it as satisfying if he's playing 51 games one year or, you know, just not getting a full season's worth of plate appearances and he still keeps the streak going? But there was a listener who suggested, and I adopted this situation, that we nickname him Quarter Pounder because he's Jake Berger and because 250. So Quarter Pounder is added again. He's up to his old tricks.

So we'll be on 250 watch for Jake Berger here on now. Prong Pounder. Yeah. All right. Speaking of Mariners broadcast, here's one that pertains to that from Hank. And it's about the expression, quickly, oh, and two. So Hank says, I just heard Aaron Goldsmith say, it is quickly 0 and 2 on Julio. This is something I've heard announcers say before, and it just now strikes me that this is nonsensical.

There is only one sequence of pitches resulting in a fresh 02 count, strike, strike. Given the pitch clock, I'm guessing 99% of all 02 counts take roughly the same amount of time to take place. But I seem to hear this fairly often, especially late in close games, perhaps the gravity of the game situation warps our perception of time. So what do you think? Quickly, O2, technically, Hank is correct, I guess, that it's probably no quicker than other times you get to O2, assuming you're not talking about the second or third O2 delivery after fouls or something.

But also, I get it. I get why. Yeah, it's sometimes it sneaks up on you or you have high hopes. Probably, yeah, usually you're going to hear O2. I'm guessing in some high leverage spot because, yeah, you're not going to say quickly O2 if it's, if it's garbage time. But quickly O2. Or it's the second inning and the game is still O, oh, oh, you're not going to hear quickly O2. It's like close game, runners in scoring position or something where you have high hopes for run scoring.

And so this is sort of subverting your expectations because it's like, all of a sudden, we're almost out of this plate appearance. It's, it's O2. That seemed like life comes at you fast. It's kind of like that, right? So it's not actually quicker than another plate appearance getting to O2 in the pitch clock era probably, but also it feels fast. It feels like suddenly our expectations, our hopes are significantly lowered. I have a question related to this phenomenon, and I don't know the answer. Do you think that quickly O2 is more likely to be deployed if it's the result?

of swinging strikes as opposed to looking? Like, is there something about it? I agree with you that, like, the times that it is deployed by an announcer typically are in late-game situations, particularly if there are runners on, or, like, if you're the last batter for the home team, or I guess for either team, right? But for your broadcast, your team's broadcast is more likely to note that a guy quickly 02 if like he's basically not only is he down to his last strike but the team's down to their last strike yeah so I think that there's this a strong situational component to when it is

when it is said and I also wonder if like if the if the hitter I don't know what I think the answer is to this but I wonder if we also are more likely to hear it if like a guy has like you know taken two rips and then he's in a hole you know what I mean like there's like a yeah yeah you know like oh don't you want to take a couple pitches here kind of a component too i don't know if if there is but i i wonder and i don't remember in this instance if if julio swung or if he took looking uh he had called strikes i just got an email about screeners for a prime video documentary called sequan so it's uh amazon listening to us as usual no i know that's not always what actually happens there it's sometimes just a coincidence but

Yeah, I don't know, I don't know whether you hear that in one situation more than another, but based on how you get to own two. But no, I think that's what it is. It's like the Texas Rangers season. It's like no team has been more, it's so over followed by We're So Back in quick succession. And when you're, you get down O2, you feel like, oh, now we're, you know, maybe it's two outs and oh, now they just need to get one more strike and we're done. we're out of this and yeah it feels very deflating and it just seems quick that that that happened that there was that reversal in terms of your run expectancy there okay all right question from jeremy i was listening to episode 2372 just now and bends aside about having to remember

that franbervaldez is a lefty caught my attention because i have a similar problem i have often described charlie morton as lefty coded and always forget that he's actually a righty Are there other pitchers who come to mind as thinking they're the opposite-handedness than they actually are? And do you think there's something about the pitcher, Arsenal, groundball, flyball tendencies, strikeout to walk, et cetera, that contributes to this interested to hear what you think. Yeah, what does produce that impression? I think that when you have a guy who is a secondary heavy, that always feels lefty-coded to me for some reason. And I don't know why. I mean, I, yeah, I don't know.

I don't know why. Why is that? Why is that? I think it's because... Is it Jeannie Moyers' fault? Yeah. Well, there is that crafty-lefty. Yeah.

I think there's some truth to that because... I think it's Jamie Moyer's fault. Lefties don't throw as hard on the whole. And so, yeah, maybe they get by with the familiarity effect because you're not used to seeing deliveries from that angle, but also maybe they have other weapons. I guess, yeah, I'm probably more... likely to think this. Not that Framper Valdez is a soft tosser or something, but yeah, if maybe if you're a

pitch-to-contact guy, which he sort of is, or he's, you know, a ground ball guy, certainly. Right. Yeah, maybe it's like if you have some of the traits of a soft-tosser, even if you're not yourself a soft-tosser. If you are, I think that's probably part of it. But also, yeah, if you're more pitch-to-contact, grounders, good control, maybe it feels like you fit the mold more of a lefty who has to get by with wild than just blowing guys away. I would guess that has something to do with it. And maybe like advanced age, like Charlie Morton, because there is that idea of like have left arm will travel or, you know, left-handed pitchers never die, that kind of thing.

Maybe that was more true when you had more lugies before the three-batter minimum. But there's something to that, you know, Rich Hill exists still, right? So maybe if you're older and you're still hanging around, then you just default to, oh, he must be a lefty. It could be it. I don't know. I think that that is like the general reason. And I think that my individual specific reason is Jamie Moyer. I think that this is the Moyer effect.

There could be something to character because there's the idea that like lefties are zany or something, which, you know, I don't know whether that's based in truth or not. But maybe if you're kind of a character in some way or maybe. I don't think that Charlie Morton has a character. No, no, me neither. No. I mean, he's like a, I mean, he's not a lefty either to the point of the email. But, you know, he's a very stoic seeming man. Yeah. But maybe if you are kind of a character, maybe that leads to people labeling you as a lefty or like spiritually a lefty or something.

Or you're just, you're unconventional in some other way. I don't know if like if you have an atypical delivery. Is that more likely to get you labeled a lefty? I don't know. But yeah, it's some combination of those factors. But speaking of my favorites, I just invoked Richel. Brebeah back, kind of. Really?

Maybe the Red Sox reportedly have signed John Brevia. They could use him, I think. If anyone could, I think maybe the Red Sox could use some right-handed relief, which is what John Rebia theoretically at least provides. But he's going home. I mean, he's a Boston native. He's from Massachusetts, so that's nice. Maybe he can be the new Rich Hill and just can constantly be shipping up to Boston.

That would be nice. Anyway, glad to see him signed. I don't, he's not like on a big league roster yet, but hopefully he will be. Give it time. Give it time. Okay. And then Ali, Patreon supporter, Ali L, says, I get the idea that it's not usually accurate to label a player as having a clutch gene since being clutch isn't really

repeatable skill, but could you say some players have a not clutch gene? I say this after watching Francisco Alvarez strike out miserably on three pitches, not near the zone. Must have been quickly 0-2 on him, quickly 0-and-3, I guess, not near the zone to end the game last night with the tying run on third and go-ahead run on second. Since it seems in these situations, Alvarez often gets over-anxious and chase happy. Upon checking his career splits on baseball reference in late and close situations, Alvarez has a 582 OPS with a near 2.8% walk rate over 100. 176 plate appearances compared to his career stats of a 725 OPS and 8.8% walk rate. It's clear he struggles in these situations. What are your thoughts on not clutch being a repeatable skill slash attribute?

I don't want to speak to Alvarez in particular because I don't know the answer with regards to him. But it strikes me as completely possible that like there would be differing levels of like pressure tolerance for guys. Now, I think the baseline for any big leaguer in terms of their ability to, like, bear down in a high pressure situation and do their job is remarkably high, right? There's, there is like a survivorship bias, I think, for this skill among the big league population because the guys where it truly is an impediment. The pressure of the situation is truly an impediment to their performance. They can't get out of their own heads, however you want to phrase it. I think that those guys end up not making the majors or not staying for very long. Yeah.

But, which I don't think is like a particularly controversial thing to say, but I do imagine that there are guys who have an easier time blocking out the pressure of the situation and just executing their swing, their pitch, what have you, the same as they would, regardless of the leverage of the moment, the roar of the crowd, how good or bad the umpire has been that day. And I think that that is important to keep in mind, too, where, like, it isn't just, like, it's close and late and I'm at the plate and I have the opportunity to walk us off. It's like, that guy back there's been bad, this whole game. And you think about the zone and you're all frustrated and you're like, eh, what's he going to do? And then you get in your own way. And you, like, you take a pitch that you shouldn't or whatever. I don't imagine that that is a, I don't think that that would be a particularly sticky skill

because I would think that one, it might be something that you're able to improve upon with greater experience, right? You get more reps at the big league level and you're like. Yeah, like when Cody Bellinger looked so exploitable early on and yeah, maybe you learn from that. You learn, right? You learn. or maybe the thing that is sort of an impediment to your ability to lock in at the plate or on the mound isn't about the game state at all. Maybe it's about other stuff going on in your life. You know, maybe somebody's sick or you're stressed about, I don't know, whatever people are stressed about.

They get stressed about all kinds of stuff. I do think Clutch is more about, it's less about really rising to the occasion than it is about not sinking to the occasion. Just not getting flustered. not getting unmanned if you are a man. Just, you know, just be your steady self. Right. And even if you are your steady self, you'll probably do a little bit worse because you'll be facing better pitching or, you know, better pitchers, better pitching teams, if this is the playoffs.

That's the other thing that I would note about the late and close split specifically is that league-wide, batters on the whole, have an OPS about 45. five-ish points lower in late and close situations, because if it's late and close, you're going to put your good reliever in there. It's going to be a tougher matchup for you. So most people, in a large enough sample, do worse in late and close situations. And so when you factor that in and the fact that this isn't an enormous sample of this split that he has had, yeah, and his youth, I wouldn't make too much of it probably. But no, I'm with you. I think there are lots and lots of non-clutch players

but very few of them make the major leagues because you'll just get filtered out if you fall apart in those important spots you're just not going to make it to that highest level and plus just like thinking just being a big leaguer that's already a really high pressure job just imagine doing that

and like that's for most people that's going to be like a nine out of ten pressure level already just the money that's at stake the attention the spectators, the criticism, everything. And so, okay, maybe sometimes it's a 10 instead of a 9, because now there's an even bigger crowd

and people watching at home and it's a more important moment. But how many people are going to be just fine with the 9 and then will really fall apart at the 10? I just feel like that's a pretty small group ultimately. Yeah, I think that that's right. Okay. All right. Here's one from Chris.

One of the things I'm watching most closely this month is the Rockies Run Differential, which before play Monday sat at negative 370. I believe it has since declined to negative 388. It's already the lowest of any team since 1900. The 1932 Red Sox were negative 345, the previous low before this. While they have no chance of catching the 1899 spiders, they could be the first modern team to have a run differential start with a 4 since the 1939 Yankees had a plus 411. Well, that's very different. to be plus 400-something instead of minus 400-something.

I'm curious, for you, where does worst-run differential sit on the list of worst teams ever? Is that better than most losses, lowest winning percentage? How should history remember this Rockies team? And, you know, Chris makes a good point. The Rockies really are bad. Maybe we've been sleeping on how bad the Rockies have been. No, we've talked about that a lot. A lot, yeah.

But we have given them credit for, hey, they pulled out of the tailspin and the nose dive a little bit. I mean, before they crashed into the ground, they managed to end the stall. I mean, they've been bad, but bad in a respectable, like, less noteworthy fashion for much of the season. But run different, yeah, like the only teams with a lower run differential than they have now are from the 1880s. 90s. And granted, there were shorter seasons and everything, more time to rack up negative numbers. But, but yeah, no, run differential-wise, this is as bad as it gets in the modern era. And by modern era, we're talking 120 plus years at this point. Yeah, they're really very bad. In some ways, that is more impressive. And by more impressive, I mean, less impressive

than what the White Sox did even last year, arguably. Because the Rockies, Like, man, they're, wow, they're bad. Yeah, 40 and 107, 272 winning percentage, but yeah, they should be a little worse than this. Like if you go just by Pythagin Pat, which is, you know, I guess mostly run differential base, then they should be two games worse than they are. So I don't know. Maybe, yeah, I think this is, this is historic in a way that, because the White Sox last year, everything went wrong for them. I mean, they were bad to begin with and then they had injuries. But then also they really underplayed even how good they seemed to be under the hood. Like they just, they really underperformed, I think, their base runs record last year. I don't remember what it was. But like they had bad luck on top of being a bad team. And the Rockies. You can't even blame that, really. Yeah. This is probably a worse team, even if they end up with more wins, fewer losses.

I think it might be a worst team. Yeah. And like the devastating part of that is that if it's that bad, are you learning anything about, like, how they can be a good team? You know what I mean? Like sometimes you got a bad team, but then you, I mean, they are playing. and some of their young guys, but, like, boy, it's rough stuff, Ben, you know? Yeah, it really is. Yeah, they're 17 and 20 in one-run games, which is not that bad.

I mean, that's, you know, no. And so the White Sox last year, I'm quickly checking to see what they were. Yeah, they were 13 and 29 in games decided by one run last year, which is way worse than you'd expect, even for a terrible team. Yeah. So they really had bad luck on top of every. everything else. And the Rockies really haven't. They have come by their badness honestly. Yeah, they've fully earned it. Yeah. They're just really this bad. Thanks, Chris. Appreciate you reminding us that the Rockies are really bad at baseball. All right. Last one from

Michael, Patreon supporter. I have a highly pedantic question. I can't recall ever having heard talked about on the pod. A friend of mine posted a video of his child on the mound of some little league game throwing a curve. The caption was, not quite 12 to 6, which got me wondering from whose perspective are we viewing the clock? The pitcher in the video is right-handed. His release point was slightly away from his body, and the ball breaks down and away from the right-handed batter. So is this a one-to-seven curveball as seen from the pitcher's perspective

or an 11-5 curve ball as seen from the batters? Yeah, 12-6 doesn't make that clear because it could work either way, depending on regardless of whose perspective it is. I think, though, neither is necessarily more valid, but I think that it's more common to hear it from the batter's perspective. I think I've heard more about 11 to 5 curveballs than 1 to 7 curve balls. I don't know. I found one website that just illustrates the movement of pitches, just a handy little guide, which I'll link to.

And it does seem to have the clock readings from the batter's perspective. perspective. And we've talked and Russell Carlton has written about how there just tends to be a bias toward the batter or from the offense's perspective. We tend to just talk about the game and look at the game that way and use language that kind of makes the batter, the instigator, even though the pitcher is really the one who's getting everything started. So I think this is probably part and parcel with that, that typically you hear about it more from the batter. And maybe it's more intuitive to hear about it from the batter's perspective. too because the batter is the one who has to like deal with that movement and yeah anticipate it then again centerfield camera i guess if we're watching we're seeing it more from the pitcher's perspective as the default angle yeah no i'm i'm quiet because i'm thinking about i'm thinking about it these so these kinds of questions always make me feel a little bit stoned yeah because like because you're you're you also have just like a a panic this might be a meg problem do you ever just have a panic that you've been getting something wrong your entire life sure yeah yeah i worry about that sometimes i had to i don't remember what it was i hope he doesn't feel like i i mean i don't know if he even listens us but like i'm calling him out but i had to ask dan a question about a piece he wrote he was writing of Connolly Early's debut and he had a he he he was talking about whiff rate and the way that

he had um it noted made me worry that I I had just like fundamentally misunderstood what whiff rate meant in my entire life yeah well there's some disagreement about that because is it whiffs per swing or whiffs per pitch or defailles counter it wasn't even a simple it wasn't even as complicated as that he okay he referenced with weight earlier but then when he was talking about like an impressive progression for early in the minors. He was really talking about contact rate. And so he had just kind of blended them. But I did have a moment where I was like, am I fundamentally unqualified for my job?

Yeah, that's never a really big thing to be thinking about on a Wednesday, you know? And he was like, no, I wrote it backwards. And I was like, oh, thank Christ. Like I was just, I had a panic. I was so, in fact, so nervous about it that I was like, do I dare ask him? And then I was like, no, Dan's generous. Like, if I've been wrong my entire life, he won't tell anyone. Yeah, we've got a touch of the imposter syndrome from time to time.

Oh, my God, profound. The other thing is, I noticed also that MLB in its, you know, they have that clock graphic with the measured spin movement. Yeah. And they do it from the batter's point of view. Yeah. But it's funny because in my minds, I think I do mostly think about these things from the pitcher's perspective. And it is because of the center field cam being so dominant on broadcasts. And so that's why I'm wound up, you know.

That's why I'm in my own head because I'm like, oh, God, what direction is it? Well, I mostly avoid this language entirely because as we've discussed on a bonus episode, not the greatest at reading analog clocks to begin with it. I do know where the numbers are on them. It's more of a... Well, and 12 to 6, you know, it doesn't... Yeah, that's simple. It's like, it's the same regardless, you know, you're not...

having a perspectival change. Perspectival? What is happening with me today? I read a study just the other day or a survey, and I'm not alone in my not quickly being able to read analog clocks, especially among the youths. So really, it's a sign of my youth. Yeah, it's because I'm so young and fresh-faced.

Yeah, you're vivacious. Yeah, I'm basically like gen alpha. So I fit right in with the zoomers and everything. That's why I'm not so great at the look. we have digital clocks. What can I say? I've just, I've atrophied if I ever possessed the skill, you know? I'm not, I'm not giving you the business. I'm not. I have other skills. All right. A few listener responses to previous discussions. We were talking about the behavior of fans going after balls in ballparks and then the sometimes viral responses to that behavior. Listener Kip writes in to say, Ben said that people who go to ballparks didn't sign up to have their face broadcast. Sorry to be the actually guy, but we all literally do.

From the terms and conditions, the fine print on the back of the ticket we used to get, holders name, likeness, and voice may be used in any broadcast, photograph, and or video, and or audio sound recording created in connection with the game for all purposes. Yes, true enough. As I said to Kip, what I meant was you don't go to a game expecting to be the center of attention. You're a spectator, not a star. You usually blend in with the crowd. But I think I acknowledge that we're all aware.

on some level that briefly becoming the main character by appearing on a video board in the ballpark or on a broadcast is a possibility. So I'm not suggesting that there's a right to complete privacy in that situation. Whether you notice that fine print or not, you know you could be on camera. Presumably, you've been to the ballpark before you've seen broadcasts. I guess you can't assume that everyone understands the proper etiquette in that situation. But you've probably seen some sporting event on TV at some point. It's just not your main motivation for being there, if it's part of the conscious calculation at all. Hey, I might be caught on candid camera here. And Kip said, fair enough, I think my point is that everyone ought to have more awareness of the fact

that when you're anywhere in public, and even more so when you're in a public place with 40,000 people and you literally sign away your right to privacy in all sorts of ways, that you're going to be subject to scrutiny for bad behavior. I don't disagree. In fact, I think we both agree. What a civil exchange. Also, we got a lot of responses to our discussion of what percentage of major leaguers have been honored by some sort of Hall of Fame. A lot of people did some spot checking and found that, yes, a whole lot of big leaguers who were not especially accomplished big leaguers were in their high school sports hall of fame or whatever it is. As some people noted, this may vary across cultures. If you came up through an academy in the Dominican or something,

maybe you're less likely to be in a Hall of Fame. But you still could be in one. And the language barrier may make that harder to research. And other countries, certainly have halls of fame or equivalent institutions. But it's true. Your demographics may matter there. But we also got an email from Alan, who says one of my long-held baseball pet peeves and one I tend to keep to myself. We really offer a podcast permission structure here for people to air these grievances

that perhaps are best kept to themselves is when people use the phrase, it's not the hall of very good. It bugs me because it draws attention to the name of the hall itself while sidestepping the fact that the hall is inaccurately named. Anytime I read or hear that phrase, I want to rudely respond with, it's not the Hall of Excellence either. As I'm sure many listeners have considered, if the Hall celebrates literal fame, then guys like Eddie Goodell or Mark Fidrich or Doc Ellis would have made it in on the first ballot. I guess that's what we have the baseball reliquary for, the Shrine of the Eternal's. We did an episode about that.

Instead of, it's not the Hall very good, we should be saying it's not the Hall of Almost Famous. The reason I'm speaking about this now is that I just learned from effectively wild that the Little League Hall of Excellence is not only a third. thing, but that it celebrates little leaguers who were not known for their excellence on the little league field. Instead, it celebrates those who became famous later in life. Not exclusively, but yes, in many cases, athletes, but also actors, politicians, etc. In other words, the Baseball Hall of Fame celebrates excellence, while the Little League Hall of Excellence celebrates fame. Yeah, you have a point there. I suppose it celebrates excellence just in another field, but still. I suggest that the two halls swap adjectives. They can meet each other halfway with

Representatives from each hall setting out on foot from Williamsport and Cooperstown and hiking about 100 miles each, meeting each other to shake hands somewhere in southern Tioga County, New York. What an opportunity to set both halls straight. Some people also mentioned that Sean Murphy, the catcher for Atlanta, who was not forthright about his hip injury, perhaps was not so different from your typical American man in his 20s or maybe other ages too in his reluctance to have something looked at, to see a professional about a physical complaint. It's true.

That is a larger issue. But I think in this case, it's less excusable for a couple reasons. One, Sean Murphy's performance, his profession depends on his body being finely tuned and in tip-top shape

and not being hampered by his hip. Whereas most of us, we could get by with some twinges or we might not even test our bodies in the same way that a majorly catcher does. So yeah, maybe there's a greater downside to him having that checked out because if it's bad news,

He can't go to work for a while, but also there's a greater upside because his job performance could be compromised severely by that injury. But the other thing is that he has great health care and access to medical professionals and trainers and everything else. So you don't have to worry about where do I have to go to find someone and do I have to be referred to a specialist and is this in-network or what kind of doctor do I even have to see here? Or do I have health care at all? Can I even afford it? Not things you have to worry about if you are a big leaguer and a big leaguer who has signed a lot. large contract to boot. Finally, some people pointed out comments that Walker Bueller made after pitching in the minor leagues recently and not loving his experience with the automated ball strike

system. He had many complaints about it. He alleged that it's inaccurate. He thinks it's not consistently calibrated. He thinks human element is a huge part of the game. He thinks the punishment for challenging something that's clearly a strike is not big enough. I could kind of go on, he said. I don't doubt it. It's funny that he then finishes with, I think the ABS system in general is a very good idea. He just doesn't really like anything about it in practice, apparently. He also said I don't think the umpire unions are going to be very happy about it. They haven't put up much of a fight about the challenge system or any of this stuff being implemented so far. Anyway, listener David, Patreon supporter in San Diego emailed us about one specific complaint that he had. I think starting

pitchers that have pitched for a long time deserve certain parts of the plate that other guys don't get. Yeah, couldn't disagree with that more. I think if you earn a little extra real estate by having pinpoint command, by studying the umpire's scouting report, by gradually expanding, by tunneling your pitches in such a way that you disguise the actual location, all of those things, or perhaps your catcher helps you out with his skill. If it is a product of the player's skill, then I'm more inclined to allow it or even sometimes celebrate it. But if it's just a product of the player's standing or reputation or experience, no, not into that. Of course, that's something that you've heard about for the whole history of

baseball. Oh, the veteran gets that call. The rookie doesn't get that call. I've seen various studies of that that I think have shown some bias, but maybe not a big one toward stars or just longer tenured players. I think it's probably a less pronounced effect than people have made it out to be, or at least in this era it is, when umpire strike zones tend to be pretty tightly constrained and consistent. But yeah, you don't often hear a player state that so plainly that I think I should get that call just because I'm me, just because I've been around the block a few times. disagree. However, I think that doing 2374 episodes of this podcast entitles us to financial support on Patreon. No, that's not true either. But hopefully we have earned it through our podcasting prowess.

And if you think we have, then you can go to patreon.com slash effectively wild and sign 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. Peanut Cheese Bar, David Walters, Sean Ferranti, Cal, and Noah Friedman, thanks to all of you. Patreon perks include access to the Effectively Wild Discord group for patrons-only, monthly bonus episodes, playoff live streams coming up next month, personalized messages, discounts on merch, and add free Fangraphs, memberships, and so much more. Check out all the offerings at patreon.com slash EffectivelyWild.

If you are Patreon supporter, you can message us through the Patreon site. If not, you can contact us via email. Send your questions, comments, intro, intro, themes to podcast at Fangraphs.com. You can rate, review, and subscribe to Effectively Wild. Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, music, and other podcast platforms. You can join our Facebook group at Facebook.com slash group slash effectively wild. You can find the Effectively Wild subreddit at our 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've cited today.

Thanks to Shane McKeon for his editing and production assistance. Thanks to you for listening. That will do it for today and for this week. We hope you have a wonderful weekend and we will be back to talk to you early next week. It's war with a smile Effectively wild It's the good stuff It's baseball nerd stuff

We hope you'll stick round For a while