Effectively Wild: A FanGraphs Baseball Podcast - Effectively Wild Episode 2415: Catch if You Can

Episode Date: December 17, 2025

Ben Lindbergh and Meg Rowley banter about the Ha-Seong Kim, Adrian Houser, and Foster Griffin signings, a prospect-for-prospect Red Sox and Nationals trade, and the Twins’ partial sale, then (34:00) answer emails about saying “pitchoff” instead of “first pitch,” the value of a cool nickname, a Hall of Fame reference in The Wizard of Oz, whether teams value batter performance against elite pitching, protesting ball/strike calls from the dugout, keeping Pete Rose out of the Hall, a running start for pitchers, and moving the catcher back instead of the mound. Audio intro: Alex Glossman and Ali Breneman, “Effectively Wild Theme” Audio outro: The Shirey Brothers, “Effectively Wild Theme” Link to FG post on Kim Link to Anthopoulos comments on Kim Link to MLBTR on Houser Link to MLBTR on Griffin Link to FG post on pitching prospects trade Link to Twins sale story Link to $/WAR analysis Link to $/WAR analysis 2 Link to ceremonial first puck wiki Link to “baseball exceptionalism” series Link to Sam’s hockey quote Link to Raleigh “Beef Boys” story Link to Sam on Trout in 2012 Link to The Wizard of Oz song Link to halls of fame wiki Link to Hall of Fame for Great Americans Link to Schwarber’s postseason stats Link to pitcher quality adjustment post Link to Capps hop post Link to Ben on moving the mound Link to listener emails database  Sponsor Us on Patreon  Give a Gift Subscription  Email Us: [e-mail]  Effectively Wild Subreddit  Effectively Wild Wiki  Apple Podcasts Feed   Spotify Feed  YouTube Playlist  Facebook Group  Bluesky Account  Twitter Account  Get Our Merch! var SERVER_DATA = Object.assign(SERVER_DATA || {}); Source

Hello, it's Effectively Wild, it's Effectively Wild, it's Effectively Wild, it's Effectively Wild. Hello and welcome to episode 2415 of Effectively Wild, the baseball podcast from Fangraphs, presented by our Patreon supporters. I am Ben Lindberg of The Ringer, joined by Meg Rally of FanGraphs. Hello, Meg. Oh, hello. Well, we have a few transactional. action appetizers to sample here. It's tough when we do

back-to-backs, you know, as they call them in the NBA. You have to play back-to-back games. In MLB, you don't call them anything because that's just the norm. Call them. Call them playing. Call them. Play in the game, Ben. Yeah, exactly. But it's

tough when you do back-to-backs on effectively wild in mid-December because the league, the sport does not always accommodate us with new news, with the fresh material. Fortunately, our listeners do. They replenish our mailbag. And what would we do without some emails? So we will get to some of those later. But a few transactions have occurred. I'm clinging to the news. I'm refreshing MLB trade rumors. Come on, give us something, you know,

because you've had a bunch of travel lately. And so we have compressed recordings some weeks. Usually we space out the pods a little bit to allow more news to accumulate. But as it is. were dependent on the teams coming through with some signings and trades at the perfect time. And inevitably, they do something after we finished recording. But they've done a few things. So we can talk about a couple of moves. These aren't major moves in the grand scheme of things. But they're kind of curious.

They're kind of intriguing. They piqued my interest. They piqued your interest. You can tell that they're really major because I'm like, which ones are he, is he going to pick? Which ones? Could be any number of moves. But Atlanta signing Hassan Kim. Yeah, probably the biggest one.

Yeah. So I have enjoyed Hassan Kim and his play for the Padres. He was a highly touted prospect coming over from Korea, took him a season or so for it to translate to the majors. But once it did, he was a solid bat, great glove, short, yeah, good runner. You put it all together. That's a three to four win player. So, of course, that guy would be in demand. But then he had a serious shoulder injury and surgery and torn labrum.

And maybe that's even worse for a pitcher, but it's not good for anyone. So he has surgery. The raise sign him to a two-year deal coming back from that surgery, which he underwent, I guess, about 14 months ago, something like that, October of last off-season. Correct. And he came back, and he was delayed or signed. sideline a couple times with subsequent injuries. Right. He had other problems that emerged.

Yeah, he strained a calf, and then he had a couple of back things. And so he was on and off the IL. And then, you know, didn't play particularly well. I mean, didn't play well at all when he was with the race for 24 games. You know, I've got to tell it like it is. And then he was claimed by the Braves off waivers from the raise. And he played the same number of games for them. 24 that he had played for the race, and he was better.

Sure. But not great. He started hot. He was hitting well, and then he sort of slumped in his last handful of games. And then all in all, when the dust settled, he had a 91 WRC plus with up a low average defensive rating, whatever that means in 24 games. And now the Braves have brought him back after getting a good look at him for a month for 20 million bucks. Yeah. That kind of made me do a double.

I mean, I'm happy for Ha-Song, happy that he's finally reunited so it gets to stay with his bestie jerks and pro far. I know. That's fun. But 20 million bucks, you know, the downside for the Braves is limited just because it is a one-year deal. Right. But he's a somewhat, no, it's not nothing. It's somewhat speculative. If you're really banking on him bouncing back to being, you know, I guess what he's projected to be in the fancraft. step charts, which is like a 2.4 war player. So if he were a 2.4 war player for 20 million without any long-term commitment, I guess you'd sign up for that, you know? Atlanta's just had a hole that's short for a while now. And so if you could solidify that spot for a season, he's projected for a 100 WRC plus. If he gives you an average bat and a good

enough glove at shortstop, I guess you'd take that. But even that's far from guaranteed, you You're hoping that further removed from the entry, he will be closer to the kind of player he was. Yeah, it's interesting, I think, based on what Anthopoulos has said about this, that I know how the Braves are understanding their own actions. But there is a, you know, there's sort of two ways that you could interpret this, because on the one hand, you could say, well, they're spending, you know, real money on shortstop. Finally, they're spending some real money on this position, right? Ansby Swanson left in, well, like, 2022. And it's been, you know, Orlando Arcea and Nick Allen, and it's just been this rotation of subpar bats.

And, you know, in some case, really superlative defenders, but, like, bad enough at hitting the, even with the defense, not really rosterable, certainly not in an everyday role. And they traded for Dubon, and he's, like, a really nice utility piece, but probably not the guy you want starting every day. And some of his value, especially for them, and some of their injury concerns is in being able to bop around to different spots, okay, fine.

So, you know, you're spending $20 million on a guy you've had, you've had experience with and who, when you look at his underlying stats, like, can, as Davey Andrews noted when he wrote about this for us, like sort of maybe satisfy some of your concerns, right? Where it's like he's able to still, you know, impact the ball. It didn't really show up in terms of results on the field. but like he's still hitting the ball kind of as hard as he was and maybe he doesn't have as many like really zippy throws but it doesn't seem like his arm strength is like meaningfully diminished so that's so that's good so okay wow yay great you're you're you're shoring up this spot that has just been a real pain point for you over the years the other way to interpret it is why don't you guys just sign someone you know can play and like at the level you need you need to win with this core right now they're getting older every single day and surely you want to maximize the roster that you have when it has like a good and hopefully healthy version of a cunia and you know you you have other

spots in the lineup where you're not quite sure what you're going to get and you are having to entertain maybe some weird platoons so i i think that it could open itself it could lend itself to a couple of different interpretations now the way that anthopolis is talking about it makes you think they just really like Hassan Kim. And if he proves that he is healthy and still productive, you know, Anthopoulos talked about them being open to a much longer pact, right? So, and Kim is only 30 and like a young 30 at that. And so, you know, I think they think they've short up this spot.

And I'm sure that they acknowledge that there is potential downside risk here. but, like, you know, certainly relative to what they've gotten out of shortstop in the last couple years, a market upgrade. And I think I'm inclined to agree with that just because I also like him. And, you know,

if he shows up to camp and looks okay, you know, he's a productive player and seems like he's well-liked. And, you know, he's better, no offense to Mauricio Dubon, but like better than putting Dubon out there every day, which is kind of what I worried they were going to do just out of like the sheer lack of good options

on the free agent, market. And, you know, if, if what you want is a guy who can hit well enough and still, like, really play shortstop, he's, he's probably weirdly the best fit on the market because unless they wanted to commit big money to Bo Bichette, who is sure to command much more than this, they don't really have a lot of options. And Bichette might not be a shortstop for very long anyway. So I like it for them. I love the idea of him and pro far being back together, as we speculated in ways that we could call irresponsible if we were being hard on ourselves, who knows, maybe, you know, he was, he, he, he, he, he was led astray by the absence of his

friend. Maybe that's why he turned to PEDs. We don't know. We don't know. But, um, I like it. But I think it is a little riskier than I was anticipating them being open to you just given how bad that position has been. But maybe that alters their perspective on what that is. Yeah, I guess that's true. That's possibility. We talked about the Royals outfields last time. Well, you know, you've kind of bottomed out. There's nowhere to go but up. Right. Isaac Collins, come on down. Let's go. Yes. I mean, maybe it makes sense. It's just there is some risk. Yeah. Last year, only the Rockies and the Guardians got less production out of shortstop than Carolina at 0.4 war. So you got to figure Hassan Kim can improve

upon that and hopefully he does get most of the way back at least and has more time to be fully healed and have the rest removed and all the rest and yeah seems like he settled in with that clubhouse and that group of guys so yeah hoping that it pays off for both really it just you know the number sort of I had a second of sticker shock when I saw yeah 20 million maybe I just need to update my model maybe I need to recalibrate what 20 million means on the free agent market these days because there's inflation. There might be some of that, but I do think that he really benefited

from just the dearth of available alternatives on the free agent market, right? Both in terms of the gap and price point. And just like, I mean, like, Bobashat might need to not play shortstop like this year, you know? Like, it's, and maybe not quite that soon, but it's coming for him, right? And how you have him evaluated, I think,

is going to say a lot about your willingness to sign him. So I think that, you know, it's so funny because Kim, when we did our first couple of rounds of ranking for the top 50, we didn't have Kim on there, in part because we weren't quite sure, like, how the injury stuff was going to play. And also, we were like, there's a decent chance he just stays with Atlanta. And, I mean, I guess that ended up being true, but on a different contract. And so we didn't have him ranked. And then we were like, well, you know, the fact that he's like really the only shortstop. maybe we need to have him on here and so I'm glad we did

because maybe that would have felt silly but I mean good for him he made himself a tidy four million extra dollars relative to what he was due on that option right so good for awesome right exactly that's what I was going to say is that I guess maybe the money is not much of a surprise

to him and to Scott Boris his agent because yeah they could have just taken the $16 million player option and when he declined that I kind of figured well maybe he's just going for more money total, lower A-A-V, but multi-year deal. But no, I guess he thought that he could better that on a one-year deal. And indeed, he did.

So read the market well, scarcity sometimes helps, I guess. Yeah, for sure. Good. Okay. Another guy who didn't make the top 50 at Fangraphs or MLB trade rumors is Adrian Howser. Yeah. And that signing just broke shortly before we started recording here that the Giants have signed, yeah, Adrian.

I don't know how many papers you'd sell as the newsboy on the corner if you're saying Xtre, XRIE Giants sign Adrian Houser, because it doesn't sound. Adrian Houser, you'd have to find a way to make it salacious, which seems difficult because Adrian Houser doesn't seem like a particularly salacious sort. But 22 mil. That's good a lot, too, for someone who couldn't crack a top 50 free agents list in a week class. Yeah.

It's a two-year deal. Right. Like I can kind of talk myself into it, I guess, when we see that it, I guess it kind of comes down to what's the going rate for a win on the free agent market these days? Because it seems like we haven't really updated that in a while. And I saw as recently as like this past year, there was a study that said it was something like $8 million. I feel like we've been talking about $8 million-ish being the going rate for a win on the free agent market for a long time. Maybe it's sort of stagnated a little bit. but he is projected currently for not much more than a win,

and he's getting 11 million. So, you know, maybe that's just how the math works out these days. He's not bad. Like, he's coming off a season when for two teams he pitched 125 innings total, a four-ish FIP, a little below four, you know, it's okay. Like, he doesn't get any strikeouts. He doesn't really fit the profile of a great starter. He isn't a great starter, but he's okay.

I guess he's depth, he's back of the rotation fodder, and maybe that's what you're going to get for that these days. He's semi-dependable, if unexciting, I suppose. Yeah, I mean, every team needs more starters, right? Like, every single one of them needs more starters. And I think I recall, I think I recall, Ben, that when we ran the Giants Zips, that Dan Zimborski noted that the back of the rotation did, you know, kind of project poorly,

that they needed additional depth. Yeah. What Zips is less excited about is the back of the rotation. Yeah, look at me remembering stuff I edited. Well, I don't know if Adrian Houser's going to make Zip super excited, but... No, but, like, he's fine, you know, it's fine. You know what I realized about Adrian Houser? I always imagine him with Colin Ray's face.

That's wrong. That's not what his face looks like. His face looks like Adrian Houser's face, and Colin Ray's face looks like Colin Ray's face. I don't know that I could really recall. I don't know if I could conjure a very accurate image of Adrian Houser's face. I think it's the Brewers. I think I'm having a brewer's wire get crossed is what's going on there.

But yeah, I always am like, oh, Adrian Houser, I know what he looks like. And then I will look at it. I'm like, no, I don't actually. different than what I thought. Well, Giants fans will hopefully know what he looks like soon. You were treading close to sort of stealing my insight that you can never have enough pitching, which is a saying that I coined at some point. And, yeah, you don't have to really reinvent the wheel. I already kind of, I already originated that insight. I thought you had popularized it to the point that it didn't require citation, you know? I thought that it just become,

kind of in the public domain now. Yeah, like, it's just like a, it's just like such an obvious statement of fact that we're all like, oh, yeah, you know. The etymology is forgotten. It's just kind of, yeah, it's just in the common lingo. Right, yeah. I should probably, yeah. I forgot the origin story.

I was the first ever to say that and realize that, really. So. Yeah, we also had a kind of an interesting trade. And I won't claim to have strong opinions about the players. involved. But I do have an opinion that I enjoy this format of trade. And I speak of the Red Sox Nationals swap of pitching prospects. Yeah. It's sort of, it's rare that you get a one for one prospect swap. And even rare, probably, that you get a one for one prospect swap at the same position. I mean, two pitchers. You know, it's one thing if you got a guy who's blocked by

someone in your system and another team has a need. And so you, you, you exchange. You change or something, but this is just pitcher for pitcher. It's righty for lefty, but other than that, it's just a couple of pitchers. Yeah, and per the assessment of Eric Longinghamen's starter for, likely starter for likely reliever. But, you know, the nationals famously traded away one of their relievers quite recently. That's true. So in theory, they're in the market for another one. And they also just signed a starter, Foster Griffin, who is the latest, just a parade of pitchers. to return from NPB, the KBO,

so Cody Ponce, Anthony K, Drew Anderson, Ryan Weiss, we reeled off this litany the other day and now add Foster Griffin to the list. Yeah, we've had a pretty meaningful run of guys who have come along. I will crow

a little bit about the fact I think every one of them she says with us. boys that no she's not certain i think every single one of them has has an up-to-date yeah because there's foster griffin i thought so look at that um eric and james just did a really nice job of like um identifying the guys who they thought were likely even guys who weren't for sure coming back over coming back over so if you're curious about all of these dudes they have up-to-date reports on

the international player section of the board so hopefully yeah be sure to check that out if i didn't know better, I'd say that maybe teams are being misled by the deadball era in Japan and they're seeing that shiny 1.73 ERA that Foster Griffin posted this past season for Yomiuri and thought, oh, this guy's great. So let's bring him back. And just haven't noticed that the run environment, the scoring environment is just severely depressed over there. But I do know better than that. I think I would be very surprised if teams did not account for the league average over there. I'm sure they're aware of the fact. Yeah.

I wonder if there's some just residual, like, it's hard to look at those numbers and not be super impressed and have your eyes pop out of your head. But then you realize that no one's hidden much over there. So all the pitcher stats sort of look pretty. But, yeah, they signed Foster Griffin. And, you know, there's sort of this conversation about like, okay, so they did. trade a reliever, and now, like, are they also dangling McKenzie Gore, is he on the market? And how much will they tear down and start over with their new regime? And this prospect for prospect trade with the Red Sox is maybe one manifestation of that new regime.

I suppose we should mention the names of the players involved at some point, although they won't mean much to most people, but it's righty Luis Perales is the pitcher who is going. to Washington and then lefty Jake Bennett is the one who's going from Washington to Boston and this is they're not like top prospects but they're ranked in their respective organizations right they're I don't know where Fancrafts

has them but they're like top tenish and Bennett is under consideration I don't think a verdict has been rendered but like he's sort of flirting with the top 100 flirting with the top 100 he'd a good fall league, and the change-up is really superlative.

But I didn't get a chance to see him in fall league, so I am relying on Eric's report, but he tends to get these things right. Well, yeah, you must know more about these players than I do because I know for a little. Well, I added the piece, so yeah, that'll help. That puts me up on you. Yeah. But one thing I do know is that the National's new leadership, a lot of ex-red Sox folks, including Paul to Poboni.

That's not just, it's not going to happen. It's not. We could just call him either Paul Poboni or just we can call him by his actual name or we can just say to Boney and that'll be close enough to Pobo. I don't know. I think part of the problem is that you sound so unsure of yourself when you're trying to do the joke. Yes, yes. The, the joke. I'll say it assertively.

Paul Toboni. Yeah. No, that's his actual name. Wait. That's his name. Yeah. I don't think it's going to work. No. Can I just say Paul Poboney? Paul Poboni? I worry that you will. So I think that you can say it within the confines of effectively wild because our listeners know that this is a running gag of ours. But I worry that at some point in the future, you will need to speak to Paul Toboni for like a piece or something. And then you will butcher his name in a way that he will find like. pretty embarrassing. And I don't know if you want to build that muscle memory lest it betray you later. Yeah. Well, I'd probably just call him Paul just to be safe. Paul. He's called him Sir Tobolny.

But he is a former Red Sox assistant GM. Right. And he has subsequently poached some people from the Red Sox. A lot of Red Sox DNA in that orc yeah. And so they know Paraly's well, obviously coming from the Red Sox system. And that's the thing. It's, you know, You see sometimes executives when they go from one team two. Yeah, they reacquire their guys. And I always wonder whether they do that too much, whether they're too reliant on the guys that they knew because in theory, like, are you then paying a premium just to go get the guys you already know? Is it because, like, there's a familiarity and comfort there. And we do know that in the history of prospect trades, generally prospects who get traded away,

they tend to do a little worse and teams tend to know their own guys better because they're around them all the time and they just know their makeup and they know their work ethic and things that aren't in the data necessarily. And so, you know, they have all the scouting reports and everything. And I guess this is an exception to that because it's it's another team trading for the Red Sox prospect, but it's ex-red Sox people. Yeah. Doing the trading for that guy. So they know just as much about them. I always do wonder, like, well, are you then just wanting to, like, get the gang back together or just bring people with you? And then they're not actually deserving of that.

It's just that you knew them best. And it just kind of makes you feel comfy to, like, have them around you again. But, you know, for whatever reason, they liked Perales and they wanted him again. And maybe they were the big believers in the Red Sox organization in him or something. I guess the other way in which it makes sense. even though it's on the surface like for like pitcher for pitcher is that they are yeah different expectations and different stages so paralysis is only 22 Bennett is 25 and he's closer and and I guess more certain probably right so I don't know if he's closer but yeah I mean like I think that Eric's assessment is that both of them are likely to make some sort of bigly contribution in 2026 I think Bennett is on the 40 man where Perales is not, I don't believe.

Yeah. And he's on. Right. Perales actually reached AAA, where it's been topped out at double A this past season. But I guess he's maybe the more safe but lower ceiling, or is that true? Because I feel like Perales is the one who's maybe a likely reliever long term.

Correct. Although the expectation I think that Eric has is that he could be a pretty nasty, one, just given the velocity and, you know, the secondaries that he has, he has struggled with strike throwing, but some of that might have been that he was coming off of Tommy John. He had very little time actually on the mound. Yeah, both of these guys have had T.J. fairly recently, right? They both have had T.J., yes, but Peralysis is more recent, but it was after the 20203 season. So some of it is you want to see what the strike throwing looks like when he's further removed

from surgery but even in fall league his strike throwing was sort of subpar so it might not support a starter profile but he has really nasty stuff so he might well end up being like a closer obviously he's 22 so like he could end up being any number of things in his life then i guess that's what i was getting at that maybe there's like a little more boom and bust potential with him i think that's right ben it is more projectible sort of seems like a kind of like a number four although is as Eric noted, just given some of the other options in the rotation in Boston might start as like a spot starter type, but eventually like profiles is like a solid back of the rotation guy, number four starter.

Yeah, and so if you're the Red Sox and you're pretty good now and you're expecting to contend, then maybe you want the guy who's, you know, you can kind of count on him. If not to be great, then at least to help you quickly. Whereas if you're the nationals and you're further away, then you bet on the upside. and you take a flyer on someone. So, yeah, it kind of admits. I guess there's more than one way for teams to match up, is what I'm saying. And you can swap players who are ostensibly at filling the same need or at the same position.

But realistically, they're not really, they're on different timelines, different roles. And also, there's the wrinkle of the ex-red-sox contingent running the nationals now. So that was all mildly interesting to me. Yeah. And hopefully my mild interest has... been contagious and has infected others and they are also mildly interested in what we had to say. I have more confidence in, confidence is maybe the wrong word. I get less nervous is maybe a better way to put it when a new administration comes in and they're like, well, we really like

this guy. Let's go get that guy. I think where I get nervous is sometimes like a new pobo will come in and they have maybe not an indifference maybe you could argue they're just being clear-eyed about it you know it's not it doesn't always go badly but sometimes i think the new leadership can be a little quick to move guys from the prior group um because they're not attached to them right like they're like my kids um i don't care about these kids and sometimes that works out fine and as i said like sometimes they can come in and have sort of a less biased, clear-eyed eval of those prospects. But sometimes I think they can be a little quick to move on. And then you'll turn around and you're like, wow, I really traded away like what ended up being a very productive Chris Taylor for exactly. Yeah, there's got to be some bias in both directions or either direction there, I would think.

Yeah, you're either too quick to turn the page. or you want to bring someone back and it's because of that connection or your personal relationship or something. And yeah, you should definitely, if you have some special insight there because of that knowledge and pre-existing connection,

then absolutely make use of that. But yes, I do wonder whether that clouds the judgment sometimes too. So, yeah, okay, well, we'll find out which one this was, I suppose, eventually. Yeah, five years from now. Yes. And the only real other news of note was Minnesota twins related. So this was sort of prelude to the news, but it was reported that the athletic

that the twins are nearing the close of a partial sale. So as, I know, you've got to take your wins where you can get them. It's a partial win, maybe. If you want to rid yourself of the pollads, you get a partial pole lad ridding. But they were exploring options for a sale. And then they said, oh, nope, never mind. We're taking that back. We're not selling, actually.

And that was quite deflating to Twins fans after years of the poll ads not spending. And being told, oh, this is just a prelude to the sale. And it's the uncertainty preceding the sale. And then there will be some new deep-pocketed owner. And then finally they will invest in this roster. And then the poll had said, nope, we're staying. Sike. But they are, evidently, according to Dan Hayes is the report I'm reading here at The Athletic,

selling more than 20% of the franchise to three minority partnership groups at a $1.75 billion valuation. And so the poll ads are expected to announce this week that they have finalized a transaction that helps a team that is $500 million in debt return to a sound financial footing while also requiring the addition of three seats to the team's ownership advisory board. And this was kind of announced over the summer. I think it's just coming to a close now and we're getting terms and more details and everything.

The deal is done. Yeah, or just about. I guess it's good if you're a Twins fan because, I mean, it's kind of like we were talking about with the Royals outfield and the Braves short stops. It's, you know, that but for ownership. Right. If you get more money and a dilution of the Pohlads power, then probably that can't be a bad thing, even if it's a half measure and not quite what you wanted.

I think that that's right. I will be curious, like, what is their end game? You know, I still feel like we don't have a great insight there. Because it's like, if you're doing this, aren't you just gearing out for a sale eventually? Like. Yeah, you think, right? So, you know, but maybe the infusion of new ownership and new people alters their ability to sort of attract a more appealing buyer for the remaining 80%. If they have successfully paid down like a good portion of their outstanding debt and the financials of the organization are in better shape, maybe, you know, a real sale where we, but understand them to be under new ownership in a more significant way becomes a greater possibility

and sort of a more palatable option for someone out there. Yeah, and it is something I've wondered because we saw the nationals, the angels, they were also on the market and then off the market again. And then when that happened with the twins, too, I was wondering, well, does this mean something? Does it suggest that the market for MLB teams is not as robust as we believe? or is this just actually, because the owners, they never come out and release a statement and say, well, we couldn't get what we wanted. So we decided to just sit on it. No, they say, oh, I've had second thoughts or I love owning this team and I didn't actually

want to sell or whatever it is, right? Right. And this article says, prior to the August decision, people with knowledge of the sales process said potential buyers were worried about their ability to immediately make money because of the club's overwhelming debt and decreasing revenues, among other issues, a reduction in television revenue, an increasing debt payment, and the possibility of a work stoppage in 2027, seemingly prevented potential ownership groups from ponying up to buy the twins. As a result of the agreement, the cash infusion will significantly reduce the club's debt, which multiple sources say

has ballooned over the past five seasons. And one source at least attributes it to not getting a boost out of being a winning team in 2019 because of COVID and no attendance in 2020, that's when the debt came on, it never came off, now it's going to come off, and of course they have reduced their attendance meaningfully post-pandemic by not investing in the team and not giving people a reason to buy tickets. So that would probably help too. But to their credit, I guess this does mention that unlike many other teams, the twins kept all of their employees and paid their minor league players in 2020, which this attributes some of the debt loads to. And then the team disappointing and getting hurt and attendance restrictions, et cetera.

So I can see how that can sort of snowball. And, you know, I want to, I can just hear Chris being like, you don't have to be nice to them. I, you know, it's not like they did nothing post-pandemic, right? Like they signed Carlos Correa, for instance. You know, they did put some money into the team. Then they took all that money and dealt it away to other places. You know, a lot of those contract obligations are off the books now. But, you know, they did try to do a little something.

It just hasn't always worked out. And now they have Josh Bell. So I bet that'll fix it. Okay. And with that, we have reached. the emails portion of the podcast, and for our first email, I will take this question about a first pitch. This comes to us from Eric, who says, for the past year, I have been driving my friends nuts calling the first pitch, the pitch off. Football and soccer have kickoff,

basketball has the tip off, hockey has the face off, golf has the tee off. We should call the beginning of a baseball game, the pitch off. If you agree, spread the word. And if not, even great podcasters can be wrong sometimes. What do you think of the pitch off for beginning the game? I don't care for that. I don't. But here's the thing. Why does it have to all be the same? You know, it's not like, you know, there are a lot of differences between those sports and baseball. You know, it's not just that. And sure, they have that thing in common between them. But it's It doesn't have to be the same. It's not confusing. Also, pitch off doesn't make sense, right? Like, you, you kick off, you do that. It's the, I know that this is like a, this is how we've voiced on it, and so it sounds normal to me, but like a pitch off isn't, you pitch, it's the first pitch. It's just, it makes better sense. Like, you can tee off. You know, like, that's an, that's an expression. And what do they say in hockey? face off they well yeah but that's not but isn't it the don't they call it the puck drop they don't call

start of action the face off do they isn't that you can't have faceoffs can't you have face offs throughout the game yes you can but so then that's a different thing entirely so it's not all the same so then why would we try to make it all the same it's not all the same now well yeah yeah there's there's the like there's a ceremonial puck dropper or yeah it's called the first puck actually sometimes which is more consistent with the first pitch. Right, yeah, although it sounds weird in hockey to call it the first puck. Yeah. Because you don't puck the ball.

Right? Like first pitch is describing the action. You don't puck the puck. You're not like, oh, what a good pucker he is. Do you? I mean, look, I don't know hockey very well. So you could tell me and I'd be like, oh, yeah, I guess that's what they do over there. And I might believe you.

But that's not, you don't puck. you don't puck the puck isn't a verb right you can have face-offs throughout the game but right it's just that one is the opening face-off it's still a face-off at the stuff right but sorry i have to confirm you'd never use puck as a verb though right not to my knowledge you don't you don't i mean you you you don't puck someone i mean maybe you do that's none of my business but like not you personally but i don't think that it's all the same so i think it's fine for it to remain different because I don't think it's all the same now, right? It's not exactly the same, but there's more consistency there in the other sports.

I think there's something to the idea of, oh, we could have a consistent, semi-consistent terminology. But no one's confused. We don't need to make it like a Richard Scary book where we're like to laymanling everything. Well, the other thing about. it, though, I think, well, this isn't even universally true either, but I was going to say the off part of it often implies kind of a competition. There's a competitive aspect, like a face off, a tip off, you know, you're competing with someone else to get the ball or get the puck. A kickoff is the exception to that rule, I suppose.

And T off for that matter, too. You're just driving. Right. So again, these are all just different. So even there, there's not much consistency. They could just all be different. Is anyone confused? no one's confused I think he's just saying there'd be a certain symmetry maybe to a pitch off here's the thing here's the thing about that

and I say this is someone who like you know I'll watch the NHL play I enjoy I don't dislike hockey I'm gonna not talk about soccer because then we get emails but I don't care about it being the same as hockey

like if hockey wants to make hockey about baseball, I mean, that seems like hockey's business, and they can decide to do that. But, like, the Venn diagrams of fans for those sports are not, like, one overlapping circle. So, like, if you're a baseball fan, and that's the only sport you care about, like, why do you care what they do in golf? I super don't care what they do in golf, to be clear. Like, of all of the sports on this list, that's the one where I'm like, no, no. I'll watch soccer before I watch golf. I did watch that one time with, what's his name?

because he was just so anxious, and it's inspiring to see a pro athlete as nervous as I am. Well, yes, sometimes the nerves come out, yeah. I'm with you. We don't have to bring baseball into line with the other sports, and we had a whole series on baseball exceptionalism and how is baseball unique or unusual. I don't think. Well, I think you can call it a puck drop, but I think that often also refers to, like, the first pitch. It's confusing in a game because.

The first pitch is often a ceremonial thing, too, in baseball. But they qualify that. They say the ceremonial first pitch. Yes, usually. But then they'll say first pitch is at that time so that you know when you should be in your seat by. So what do they call it in hockey? May or may not be accurate. Although I think we have it better in baseball than they do in other sports like basketball.

You can kind of trust the listed start time in baseball more than you can in the NBA, I think. But I think that that might be true. I don't know. In football, they're like on the money, Sunny. They like really, they really kick that thing off when they say they're going to. Yeah. What do they call it in hockey? They can't call it a puck off.

That's insane. It's just a faceoff. I think it's just opening face off or just a face off. Opening face off. So they qualify it the way we would qualify ceremonial first pitch. Because there are multiple faceoffs throughout a game. Yes, many faceoffs, yeah. But only one first pitch.

So what now? You know, that doesn't prove anything except that I don't know a lot about hockey, I guess, but here we are. Well, I like keeping baseball weird and different. That's nice, too. I think it's not alone and it's difference. Yeah. And, hey, baseball was before most of those sports. Yeah, yeah.

Maybe not golf, but a lot of them. So maybe they should say the first tip off or the first kick or something instead of the kickoff. Yeah, it's the first tip. I don't know. Maybe they should follow baseball's example. I don't, I just like, everybody can do their own thing. It's fine, you know? It doesn't have to be a whole, we don't all have to dress alike.

It's not like, you know, or like, do you wear, do you hear, I sound so much more tired than I realized I was. And I'm realizing I'm as tired as I sound, but I'm going to get over that. Do you, are you a matching sets guy in terms of your, uh, attire, Ben? Do you wear like, do you ever wear a matching set? No, I mean, unless we count like sweatpants and sweatshirt. Yeah, but does that count? Are they like understood to be like matching? Part of a sweat suit. That's typically the sort of suit that I would wear. I mean, yeah, yeah, I guess, but I don't go out of my way to, to match. Yeah, I ask because, you know,

matching sets are like really in and especially for women. And this was more true in the summer, but I live in Arizona, so, like, what does summer mean? And I really like them, and it feels like, you know, you've put yourself together, like you're wearing an outfit, even though sometimes you're in, like, soft pants. We've differentiated between soft pants and hard pants and soft pants are ones that don't have a zipper or a little button. But sometimes I feel like I'm dressed like an off-duty power ranger. Do you ever have that in a thing where I'm like, off-duty power ranger?

Because I'm like all in blue, and I'm like, who am I trying to be, you know? Yeah, sometimes I think that about other people's gym wear, where it's like, what is this? Are you, are you suiting up to fight crime or something? Yeah. Just on the elliptical, yeah, you're doing too much here. Your consternation over the hockey terminology reminded me of Sam's famous bit about drop third strikes where he went on a rant about how that rule makes no sense. It doesn't make sense. And he said, does a running back who juke's a defensive player have to stop if the defensive

a player loses his balance and falls to the ground, is a basketball player's three-point shot declared void if the shooter is too far behind the line? If a hockey player does a thing that something about the other guy's thing, does the thing get unhockeyed? That's basically what we were just conversing about. Yeah.

Okay. Puck drop. Puck drop just makes sense because they do do that. Sorry, Eric. We're keeping first pitch, I think. Okay. Yeah. Listener Dan says,

How much is a cool nickname worth to a baseball player? or a team, certainly players with cool nicknames sell more jerseys, but maybe to people who would otherwise buy a teammates jersey, surely being popular leads to slightly higher free agent deals and marketing opportunities on the margin. So it's an interesting question. If all else being equal, but one guy has a great nickname, what is that worth to you over the course of your career or your lifetime in whatever, you know, how much your, you command at card shows when you show up to do autographs or, you know, signing merch, your memorabilia, whatever it is. It's got to be a tangible value. I don't know the answer to this question, but I can offer an anecdote, which is in the fall league this year, Nacho Alvarez was just down here playing.

natural alvarez who got like a not small number of plate appearances for the Atlanta braves in you know in Atlanta well I mean I'm starting to don't play in Atlanta but you know what I mean he he has seen a good bit of big league time and 208 played appearances at the big league level this year so cool name on his own on its own right nacho Alvarez you're like wow not a nacho everybody loves nachos here's the thing Ben his fall league jersey number was six seven it was 67 but it was 6-7 the kids and by the way why are all of these kids at fall league games during the day during the week shouldn't you be in school we asked our truants well they're there with their parents so i'm like raise like a homeschool thing or and maybe it is but also like whatever we're doing here so uh go be in school but the kids would go bonkers cuckoo bananas for nacho alvarez and he'd come up and then go six seven and then their parents would say slowly started bleeding out of their ears.

So all of that to say, it's for something because it definitely, like, endeared Nacho Alvarez, who, again, already had a cool name, and I know that 6-7 isn't a nickname, but, like, you know, work with me here. Like, you, when you layer these bits

of, like, fun ephemera on top of one another, it can really, like, galvanize a fan base. It can really, like, put you at the center of their falling experience. Not everyone's named Nacho. Why does he, go by Nacho. Well, that alone, I mean, that's the nickname. He's actually Ignacio, but

he's the first. Which is a great name. I love the name. He was good too. Yeah, but. Yeah, it's a solid name, man. It sounds like I smoked a bowl before we got on and I swear, I didn't. He is the first big leaguer to have gone by Nacho. Actually, I guess he would have been the first Ignacio, too. That's somewhat surprising. But yeah, that's already a nickname and it's kind of catchy and memorable. Yeah. The only thing that I would say is that I guess sometimes a good nickname goes hand in hand with the qualities that would make a player more memorable and more of a personality to them. Because are there players, I'm trying to think, like, are there players who are very boring who have great nicknames or is there often a correlation? You know, like, do you bestow a great nickname on a guy who's just not really deserving of a great nickname?

he's kind of boring or yeah do you do you give a great nickname because you think we need to juice this guy up a little bit like we need to give him something and maybe a nickname would help but then it's it's almost a mismatch if you have just a very bland player and then like an amazing nickname i feel like you have to have kind of the flashy personality to justify the flashy nickname yeah and so maybe then it's just kind of redundant or like you would get most of the benefit of the nickname just from the qualities that lead to that nickname being conferred on you okay so i i can i can just feel i can feel our listeners screaming through their phones right now why aren't you talking about big dumper because this is like the apex of it right like now

cow rally had like an MVP caliber season so that did a lot of the work but like you you telling me that he would have gotten quite as much attention as he did if he hadn't also had the nickname of Big Dumpur. No chance. Yeah. No chance. And so I think they can be mutually reinforcing. The thing is that, like, nicknames often, and maybe Cal is a good example of this, like,

nicknames can follow guys from like very early in their career, sometimes before their pro career has even began, but sometimes from when they're in the minors. Like, you know, Jared Kellnick's the one who started calling Cal Big Dumber in a professional context, although I think we came to find out during his derby run that, like, people have just been talking about his butt, his whole life, which has to feel so strange. So, sorry, we're doing it again. They called him a beef boy for a while back in a day, too. But they called him a beef boy. They did that. Before, yeah, not just us. Not just us. But I think that, you know, his, the combination of the performance with the nickname really launched him. And there are,

probably teams where that's less important, right? Like, if you're on the Yankees and you have a boring name, I mean, Aaron Judge isn't a boring name because the judge thing, you can like play with that. There's a lot to work with there. But, you know, if you're on the Yankees and you have a boring name, you're Joe Smith, but you're a really good baseball player and you play for the Yankees, I don't know that you necessarily need the aid of a nickname. The Yankees are a bad example because they don't have names on the back of their jerseys, although fans buy them with names on the back of their jerseys which i have judgment about so but i think that like if you play for the mariners and you're really really good but you have a killer nickname that people like

saying it's going to have a bigger effect and a more beneficial effect because you're you know you're playing in a smaller media market and you're not getting necessarily the same kind of national attention all of that to say it's worth it seems like it's absolutely worth something and I can imagine a nickname being like cool enough that people buy the jersey even if the player's not very good like people bought Seth Beer jerseys because they wanted beer on the back you know yes yes right and I guess Seth Beer is not really receiving the proceeds probably from people purchasing his jersey but yeah it does maybe give you some benefits just in that you get better known and thus you can whatever appearance fees autographs sure that

fees you know you can do a brewery partnership yeah exactly right yeah i mean like i have been saying that zach charbonnet who is the one of the running backs on the seahawks which you know because you're a football guy now um that he should partner with one of the wineries in washington and do a charbonnet charonet like for sure yeah that's a that's a free idea for you you yeah take that and run with it yeah or or what about uh joe shardernery Barbonneau, the former big leaguer, who I still think of sometimes because, you know, Super Joe, Super Joe Charbonneau. Everybody loves a rhyming name. We love rhyming names. Yeah. And, you know, he was the rookie of the year, too. And so that helped catapult him to being Super Joe, or I guess, according to baseball reference, also Bazooka Joe or Jolten Joe. I don't think he can claim Jolton Joe. I don't think he can claim Jolton Joe.

That big thing is taken. But, yeah, I'm looking at Joe Smith, by the way, because you mentioned And a Joe Smith, as an example, the Joe Smith, who played Major League Baseball, his listed nicknames on baseball reference are Smitty, which, come on. I mean, you know, do we even have to specify? And Sidewinder, which is kind of cool if he was actually called that. I don't know if people really called him Sidewander. How's it going? Probably not.

But, yeah, if you're Joe Smith, maybe it helps to have a good nickname. But I don't know. I'm thinking of like a lot of the legendary players also have, like, legendary nicknames and it's more because they were a legendary player and so someone had to bestow a nickname on them they were deserving of it but i do think that yeah there would be a very real and appreciable and sizable value over a player's lifetime if all else were equal same personality same stats same performance but one guy's got a great nickname and another doesn't yeah i absolutely think that that's going to translate into much more money much more fame and the other thing

is that it usually has to be organic. You can't create your own nickname. Usually it has to be like someone called Cal Big Dumpur. He didn't even really like it initially. And then he kind of lives with it and embraced it. But yeah, like if he had tried to get that started, then it would have seemed try hard and inauthentic. And I don't know whether it would have caught on the same way.

But the fact that he was like a reluctant nicknameee, that I think helped, if anything. and once like we understood that we weren't going to offend him or something or he wasn't like intensely bothered by this then yeah you know you have to have the good nickname thrust upon you sometimes so if you didn't have a great nickname and you just wanted one because you figured oh i'll make much more money if i have a great nickname you'd have to be really clever about it you'd have to start some sort of campaign you'd have to like astroturf it you'd have to pay someone secretly to suggest it seemingly organically and then

hope that it spreads, you know, you'd have to, like, pay Russian spammers to, like, seat it online or something like that. I don't know if it would work, but, uh, but maybe, right? I mean, it's like, uh, Mike Trout's nickname, I remember. And, you know, people don't really call him this, but like, well, there's the Millville Meteor, which is kind of like a old-timey sports writer kind of nickname, where you wouldn't really call players that if you knew them or you wouldn't even really refer to the, it was more of like an imprint thing, you know, just to dress it up a little bit. But on baseball reference, his nickname is still listed as kid, like, K-I-D, but with a lot of eyes. Eyes, yeah. Yeah, I'm trying to remember, but I remember in Sam's profile of Trout and ESPN,

the magazine in 2012 or whatever it was. I think that was just the sort of thing. It was like some guy who went by weed mouse online, just like called him key. And then it, like, got it. There are a lot of nicknames on baseball reference that are not really legitimate, authentic nicknames. Like, no one ever called them that. And you don't really remember that they were ever referred to that way, but they just kind of get canonized on the page. I've noticed that on the hockey reference site, there are even more nicknames than in baseball. And I don't know whether that's because there are more nicknames in hockey than in baseball or just because the site has a lower bar for what passes must.

is a nickname. Anyway, I'm saying usually it has to just develop and you can't give yourself a really memorable, legendary one. You can't give yourself a legendary one. The way you say kid is like really, it's not like you're getting ready to introduce Kid Rock. Yeah, I guess I do sort of say that like that, but no one ever calls Mike Trout that ever. They don't call him the Melville Meteor either, but Melville, Melville. Melville, yeah. Milville. Yeah. You know, I guess it actually, it was the Millville Meteor.

That was the nickname that Weed Mouse, who was at the time just someone on the something awful forums and just decided that like, well, if, you know, the commerce comet is Mickey Mantle and everyone's comping Mike Trout to Mickey Mantle, then he needs an equivalent. So I'll just call him the Millville Meteor. And then it kind of caught on. It's like it's on his Wikipedia page, and then that leads to something else, and then suddenly it's on baseball reference, and, you know, Mike Trout, like, didn't even know that he had this nickname, but it becomes kind of his nickname, not that anyone actually calls him that in conversation. Question from Edward, who says, quick question in regard to Kyle Schwerber receiving more money or years than expected, perhaps, given his DH archetype. Do you think it's possible that teams may have started to parse or wait war-type calculations by quality of opponent?

I feel like I recall Eric and maybe others talking about Schwerber's skills playing against nearly any quality of pitcher, I think meaning he would be a credible power threat, even against elite velocity and maybe stuff. Do you think this contributes to teams paying up for him more than you'd expect, given his age and defensive limitations? I was going to say that I thought someone would have already done this, but that was lazy, and 30 seconds of Googling showed Brian Woolley wrote a nice piece in the Fangraph's community blog detailing the crux of this weighting the batting by pitcher quality, which Brian called pitcher-weighted OBA or P-Woba. Brian's methods seem reasonable to me, including the assertion that incorporating this into war

would be feasible, as far as I know, this isn't currently in Fancraft's war. So, yeah, this idea that maybe we aren't accounting for this special ability to hit elite speed or something and that teams might pay more, pay a premium for that. I think that that happens and is true. I don't know that they consider it within like a playoff specific context, right? I don't think they're sitting there going like, well, he's going to see, you know, higher average VLOs come October. I think they're like, wow, guys are really hard now and you can hit big velocity. So that seems pretty cool. I do think that the way the hitters are assessed and sort of the granularity of that stuff is, it certainly goes beyond just like sorting our leaderboard and being like, I don't know, this guy seems pretty good.

Look what his war was. Let's sign him. I do think that there's a balance to be struck there because you don't want to be so fine as to be including performance. performance in, like, sample sizes that are two smalls really mean anything, but I think that they're definitely mindful of, like, how a guy does against particular pitch types and particular velocity bands and how much, like, barrel variability does he have. And, you know, they're looking at all kinds of stuff. It's not just like WRC plus. Yeah, I don't know if that comes into play with Schwerver specifically, but it might. I don't know. But, yeah, it wouldn't surprise me if that's

something that teams factor in. And if you are hoping to be a perennial playoff team, then might make sense to consider that. Because, yeah, not only are you just seeing better Vela, you're just seeing better pitching period in the postseason. Yeah. And Schwerber, he has a career regular season, WRC Plus of 126. He is a career postseason WRC plus of 142. So it has played out that way thus far. Yeah. And I do sometimes I wish that War stats accounted more

for quality of opponent. I guess baseball references War kind of does, maybe baseball prospectus's warp sort of does. Baseball prospectus in its old leader boards, you used to be able to look up quality of opponent easily, just like look up

the average, whatever the stat was allowed by all the pitchers that that guy faced. That season, that sort of thing. And there were sometimes meaningful differences, and I would kind of use it if I was talking about end-of-season awards, and I was looking for some tiebreaker or something I might say, well, look at the quality of the pitchers this guy faced, significantly different than the quality of pictures this guy face. And, you know, you could absolutely bake that into war, and that's somewhat appealing to me. Maybe another layer of abstraction there, another

adjustment you're making. It's further from just like what actually happened on the field. And then there's the philosophical question of, well, what do you want this to reflect? Like, is it true talent that we're trying to assess with war? Or is it just your performance? But, you know, if you're adjusting for ballpark and other stuff, then there's certainly an argument for adjusting for the quality of the opposition, too. It's just, yeah, how many layers of abstraction do you want in your value stats before it becomes kind of opaque or people disregard it because they think it's some sort of hypothetical fictional imaginary stat instead of what actually happens. But, you know, facing good pitching or good hitting if you're a pitcher,

that's a real factor that affects your stats, I guess unless you're this hypothetical player who, you know, performs well against anyone. I also, I wonder like how many players fit that mold exactly. Because, like, yeah, I'm sure there's something to that, something with, like, swing planes or whatever it is, but also if you just, like, had a great capacity to catch up to Velo or something, then wouldn't you just, like, be a really good hitter all the time? And that would just manifest, like, all the time because you'd just be crushing all kinds of, I guess, yeah, if you had, like, such a quick bat that you were really able to separate yourself from other players at the top end of the velocity range. And so, you know, you'd, like, anyone can catch up to 90, but you can catch up to 100. And so your numbers might be more pedestrian in that lower bands, but they'd be better, higher up, or at least you'd decline less against the better stuff than someone else. I'm sure there's something real to that. But, yeah, you'd have to worry about samples and how reliable and predictive it all is and probably the actual, like, swing characteristics stuff that teams have had for a while.

while now and that we have to some extent in the public now. Yeah, that would probably give you a better handle on how reliable that all is. Yeah. And I think, like, just to put a bow on the war point for a second, like, I guess I want to caution people to not like try to lard it up with too much, right? We have a bunch of ways to measure the performance of hitters against particular pitch types, against particular velocity bands in certain parts of the zone we can measure their bat speed you know we can do all how hard they're hitting the ball all sorts of stuff and that isn't to say that war can't be refined and the better stats in one result in a more precise stat out like we have swapped out defensive components of war so that we're relying on stat cast now we think that that gives a more accurate representation of what a guy did on the field but it doesn't have to do everything it just has to to do what it does. So don't, we don't have to, we don't have to put everything in there.

You know, I think that there is something to the simplicity, relative simplicity of it. And I know that it's complicated to some degree, but I think it's less complicated than people really appreciate, particularly for position players, when you don't have to, like, explain what FIP is to somebody. But I think that, you know, some of the value of it and the explanatory power of it,

is it being relatively straightforward? Question from Patreon supporter Sam. Speaking of baseball movies, is the Wizard of Oz a baseball movie? There's a lyric saying Dorothy will be a bust in the Hall of Fame. Not as in a bust. Not a player who doesn't pan out, but a bust as in her face will be like a statue sort of.

Is there any way to prove this line was directly in reference or inspired by the Baseball Hall of Fame. I know they have plaques in the baseball hall, so maybe not. Yeah, not bus. But the baseball hall was opened very shortly before production on that movie, so I could imagine at the time, if someone said Hall of Fame, it was directly inspired because of the recently launched Baseball Hall of Fame and not a random other Hall of Fame.

How famous was the baseball hall at that time relative to other halls. Wow. So, yeah, I'll ask Shane to drop in a clip here. But there is, it's when the munchkins are serenating Dorothy. Now on, you'll be history. You'll be history. And we will glorify your name. You'll be a bus.

Be a bust. Be a bust. In the Hall of Fame. I don't think this is a baseball reference. I don't think it is. No. First of all, I don't think the timeline quite matches up because the baseball Hall of Fame, I believe, opened in June of 1939, and the Wizard of Oz premiered in August.

of 1939. So the baseball hall opened up two months before the movie. So probably now I know that the first class of baseball hallfamers was elected a few years before that, before they actually built the place and had the plaques. But even so, I don't think that it would have been that well known at the time or that it would have been synonymous with the Hall of Fame because the institution of halls and fame goes back a ways. And I think that lingo goes back to the 19th century or early 20th century. So it's not as if the Baseball Hall of Fame was the first base was the first Hall of Fame. So right. And in fact, I learned or refreshed my memory that there was a a better known hall at the time called the Hall of Fame for Great Americans,

which, uh, which still exists. It's in the Bronx, actually. And, and that at the time, I think would have been synonymous with the Hall of Fame. There was a recent New York Times, are from 2018, and the author says that they went to pay a visit to the Hall of Fame for Great Americans, the colonnade of busts of writers, statesmen, and inventors that stands upon one of the highest spots in New York City. In its heyday, back in 1900, inclusion here was what it meant to be famous in America. When the munchkins sing to Dorothy, you'll be a bust, be a bust, be a bust in the Hall of Fame, in the Wizard of Oz.

This is what they meant. So I don't know whether the author confirmed. that or is also just inferring that. But yeah, I'm going to guess that was the reference and that it was not based on baseball at the time. Well, that's very funny to me, though, because my argument was going to be, what frame of reference do Munchkins have for baseball? Well, that's a good question, too. But what frame of reference do they have for Right. The Hall of Fame for Great Americans? For Great Americans. Now, the audience watching would have that frame of reference. And so maybe they're like, hey, we'll just

you know, assume that people will let us have this one. But do munchkins play baseball canonically? Are they a baseball playing? I mean, maybe there's a Hall of Fame for Great Munchkins. I don't know. Maybe they have their own. Who knows? They could well have their own.

They could have their own major league baseball, you know? They could have their own baseball. We don't know. They have those lollipops, but I don't know about baseball. True. Yeah. So I'm going to say Wizard of Oz. Not a baseball movie, at least not on these grounds. Although Ozzy Smith is a Wizard of Oz player based on his nickname, the Wizard of Oz. I mean, look, you take. I feel like you're stretching. Yeah, probably. But he was great at stretching. But take the nickname away from Ozzy Smith. You know, if he has no Wizard of Oz, is he quite as famous? Is his signature quite as valuable? Yeah. I don't know. I do think, I will say, this is maybe a boring way of saying, no, I don't think it's about baseball also, but it's, I also am just skeptical that, like, at that time in history, that that would be a, you know, like a superlative or a laudatory thing said about a woman.

I don't think they'd be like, oh, yeah, you're going to be in the Hall of Fame, you know, were men for men who play baseball. I just feel like they wouldn't do that. Yeah. Seems unlikely. Although maybe at that time, the munchkins had more progressive gender politics than the United States. And so they were like, there's nothing that precludes you from being in the Hall of Fame. You just have to give it your all. Yeah, that's possible.

Although they were very quick with the wicked witch terminology. So I don't know. Well, I mean, look, sometimes if the shoe fits, you know, she was in the, right, exactly. She was pretty nasty. You know, and she was mean to those monkeys. So are we done with wicked movies now? Are we done with them? There are no more, right?

I don't know. I wouldn't count on it. I guess there's no more to adapt. I just, gosh, you just said that I was stretching. I think there are more of those books. Well, yeah, maybe there's more to mind. But I should have said when you accused me of stretching that I would never because you know. I know.

And then you complimented his stretching. And I was like, wow, maybe Ben has had a change your heart. but I didn't, I feel like I've already taken us down a number of Col de Sacks, Coles de Sacks today. And so I was like, oh, I should probably avoid that one. Yeah. Okay. Here is a question from Matt, who says, uh, Ugg Pete Rose. That's the subject line.

Begrudgingly, this email is about Pete Rose's Hall of Fame case after listening to both your A-Rod discussion and your conversation with Jay Jaffe. It seems to me that there's a simple and clean solution to the daunting issue of having to have discourse about Pete. And I was wondering if anyone had heard anything about this. Could the Hall just amend the ineligible list rule to disqualify anyone who has been on the ineligible list, removing the need to remain on the list after death? To me, it sort of seemed like that was Manfred's workaround to keep Trump happy and keep the antitrust conversations at bay when the lifetime decision was announced. Is there much talk about this in Hall of Fame circles, if not is it time to champion this? so that by 2027, we don't have to talk about this anymore. I don't know.

I'm not really in Hall of Fame circles. But, yeah, the idea that, yeah, he couldn't be elected. Because the Hall of Fame passed a rule basically to preclude the induction of Pete Rose, you know, decades ago to say that if you're on the ineligible list, then you can't be in the Hall of Fame. And so Matt is suggesting Matt D. that they just amend that rule to say, well, having ever been on the ineligible list is also. disqualifying. I think that that's a creative solution. I think it's a little more direct than the hall likes to be. Yeah. It's a, it's a fairly passive, aggressive institution, all things considered, although I guess Joe Morgan's letter was pretty just aggressive, aggressive, not passive aggressive. I think that they will stick to if, if the opinion of the Hall of Fame as an

institution is that Pete Roe should not be inducted, they'll stick to their tried and true method to find in 16 people who agree with them and put them on the era committee. Like, we know what they're recourses in moments like this, you know, and I don't support that kind of cronyism. I really don't know what the halls, what, like a non-loaded committee, a non-stacked committee, a non-biased committee, what your average run-of-the-mill committee would do in the event that he comes up like I just don't know what their approach is going to be you know I really don't I don't know but I don't think the hall wants him in like there's this there's been this assumption

since he was reinstated that like oh he's going to be in the hall of fame and I'm like I don't know that that's true you know they were very happy to have an out with him when he was put on the ineligible list so I just don't know that there's going to be the kind of appetite for it that people seem to think. And like, you know, I don't want to say that that we know for sure, but like the perception of him and of the gambling stuff, I don't know that we're in like a settled place with all of that, you know, I think that people, that sports gambling is so popular and obviously what he's doing is like different than a fan gambling. I'm not saying that they're the same. But I think that people are starting to even if slowly have an appreciation

for like some of the harm that comes out of this stuff on the consumer end or at the very least an exhaustion with it on the like sports fan viewing end so the the sort of general appetite for him in the hall i just don't think is like a settled question and i don't want to mistake a couple of loud bozos online for like a rep as like representative right like i don't know i don't know that that's true. They sure are loud, though, and many of them are bozos, but I don't know. I think they'll just stack the deck if they don't want them in there. Probably. I don't know how hard it would be to find people from that period who actually don't want him in, but I do think because, you know, when he died and when he was removed from the ineligible list, like plenty of

people said things that were approving and plenty of people said things that were sort of on the There were very few people who came right out and condemned and said he should never be in the hall, contemporaries of his, I mean. So, you know, there's definitely some propeat sentiment there, but perhaps not among the hall's leadership. Yeah, I don't love this solution, I guess, just because it doesn't really make sense to me that you should be permanently ineligible for something based on having been temporarily ineligible. Yeah, because, you know, what if there are people? people who are on the uneligible list just for a year or something, and it's more about like they can't work in baseball this year because they did something and then they get reinstated and it's not really, you know, they serve their time or whatever. And so you don't really have to

punish them forever for that. So it does seem like a rule that would be crafted specifically to keep Pete out. And I'm all for that. I'm all for the end goal. And maybe the end justifies the means in that case. But philosophically, it doesn't seem super consistent, I guess. I tend to be of the mind that, you know, voters should have to be, whether it's an era committee or the writer's ballot, I think that voters should have to be responsible for their own vote and they should have to grapple with difficult cases, right? Like, you know, we've talked about this within the context of my understanding, and I might not get the exact contours of this, right, but bear with me.

My understanding is that, like, the NFL Hall of Fame tells their voters that they are not allowed to consider stuff that isn't play on the field. I would hate that as a voter, right? Like, I think that it's my responsibility to try to untangle, you know, how do we deal with guys who have allegations or convictions or suspensions for domestic violence when they were really great players? Like how do we balance those things? How do we think about that? What are our obligations to fans, to the institution, to the player? Like, I don't know that I'm going to enjoy the process of doing that, but I think it's part of my responsibility as a voter to do so. And I want the ability to come to a conclusion on my own about how that stuff factors in the same way that I want to be able to come to a conclusion about how much catcher framing should matter for catcher cases.

and how we should think about starting pitching in an error where starters are throwing fewer innings. So I don't like the idea of the institution saying, you know, you get a pass because we don't want this guy in. I think that if a voter is going to be on one of those committees, they should have to, you know, go full freight and deal with the entirety of the case. And I think that Pete Rose is an obvious no.

He broke the one capital rule in the game. And I don't know. I thought that would be enough to have him never be eligible again. I didn't appreciate quite how much buckle there might be in the commissioner in the face of Donald Trump wanting him to be reconsidered and reinstated. But I don't know, I don't know how much the Hall cares about that piece of it. I don't know, you know, what their perspective on it will be. But I think the way that they will try to deal with it is to have their voters say, have the error. a committee voter say no he doesn't get to get in and that if the institution's perspective is this

guy doesn't belong in the hall then you're going to get a bunch of anti-cambling people on that committee and again like i i don't like the cronyism of the committee system is enough that it like taints the entire exercise for me which is too bad because there are there are guys who are absolutely qualified to be in the hall of fame who have gotten in via the committee ballots, and I don't want to take anything away from them, but it does make you feel cynical about the entire venture. But also, it keeps me rolls out then, like, you know, maybe I'll give them a pass for a year. I talked about this back when I decided it's not to vote, so I don't have to rehash the whole thing now. But I did think,

I think I said at the time that I would be somewhat open to a NFL style system where it's just about who are the best players. Yeah. Because part of what frustrated. me is that it's just kind of inconsistent and it's like there's a character clause, but historically no one paid attention to the character clause and now they kind of do, but inconsistently where it's like certain aspects of bad character held against you, but then others aren't. And then also if you do get in and there is a character clause and you're instructed to vote based on character, then it's sort of rubber stamps that the guy is of good character if he gets in

because that is part of the voting criteria. at least ostensibly, and so it sort of sends the message that, yes, we have found this person's character up to snuff when that's often not the case, and yet there's no indication of that on their plaque or anything like that. So the whole thing, it's kind of messy, and I might actually subscribe to just, we're not even, you know, passing judgment on that one way or another. We're just saying that this guy was good at baseball, and that would be neater. Then again, I don't know that there would be that much utility to it because we already know who the good baseball players are, which is, I think, part of why I just generally care less about the Hall of Fame

now these days is that I think there's less need for it. And by that, I mean specifically the plaques and deciding whether this guy clears some baseline. Because, like, we have war and we have jaws and we're all looking at the same numbers. And it's just... I know, but it means so much to them, Ben. It does. It means so much. But it just means less to me, personally. And that's And that's fine, but I watch Jeff Kent cry in Orlando. I don't think he's a man that does that very often was my take away from his Hall of Fame press availability. And he cried about what it meant to him. And so I want to have a reverence for what that institution means to people in the game.

I'm not saying you're being cavalier about it. think that your reasoning is sound. I know that I have joked by inviting Jay Jaffe to call you a coward. I don't mean that. I think that abstaining from voting is perfectly fine in this instance, to be clear. But I think that it is an honor and a distinction that means a great, great deal to players. And I, you know, and that's part of why I think that I should be on the hook for the whole. for the whole vote, you know, for incorporating the whole thing. And, you know, I think that most

Hall of Fame voters I know take that responsibility very seriously because it just means so, so much to these guys. And I want to have respect for that. So yeah. But not for Pete Rose. That guy's a Uber or was. He's famously dead. There is something special about having an institution and a tradition like that. And so on some level, I hope it persists. I do wonder whether it will always mean as much to, because it means that much to players, because it means that much to other people, to fans. And we confer that importance on it. And so if it does become less important to others, because we have all of these objective measures of whether guys were good, then I wonder whether it will remain that important forever. And I guess part of me would welcome it not being quite as

important because it does lead to so much bitterness and arguments and just like writing off players who don't clear that bar. But part of me thinks that we would lose something too. Okay. So question from David, Patreon supporter, how well do you think managers slash coaches slash players see pitches from the dugout? I guess this is more of a hot take than a question. I don't think they can see pitches or have pitches relate to the strike zone very well. We're all spoiled by the center field camera, but whenever I go to a game and sit on the first base side, I'm reminded of how poorly my judgment of ball and strike calls is.

Sure, the dugout is closer than the stands, but the angle's still bad, right? If it's as bad as I think it is, how much of a manager's reaction to a questionable call on a pitch is actually his reaction, and how much of it is him reacting to his batter reacting. Yeah, it's definitely the latter to some extent. You can see height more or less.

I mean, even then, you're on a different level from the field because you're down a bit. But you can assess and you've been in the dugout for a zillion games and you know what a strike height is from that vantage point. But, yeah, of course, you can't really tell in or out perfectly well. You can kind of pick it up, sort of, and you can approximate, but you're certainly not going to be as accurate as the umpire who's right there is. So you are going by context clues and you're backing up your player and, you know, you want to look like you have your teams back and you're going to fight for them and you're going to get all fiery. And sometimes maybe you think that getting on the empire is going to lead to more favorable calls after that, possibly. You know, there's maybe a fine line. If you're running the empire's ragged, maybe they will punish you.

But if you express your vocal disapproval of a call, then you never know, subconsciously even. There could be a makeup or maybe a borderline call goes the other way. Or, you know, we've talked about whether that's a good strategy or sensible or not. But I think some people believe that it is. So I think probably there is some belief that they can actually tell more so than they can. But I think there's also some self-awareness that they don't really know. but they're going to just give the umps heck anyway just because it might help them or it might make their players feel better.

Yeah, I think that that's right. I do think you have some ability to judge the up-down part of it. But in terms of side-to-side, I think your view can be limited based on where managers typically stand in the dugout. Maybe if you were way down the line, but even then it would be kind of hard to tell. but you also might have a sense of the umpire going in and so maybe the reaction of your batter is sort of confirming your understanding of the kind of zone that umpire typically calls but yeah i mean put it this way there's a reason well there are a couple of reasons um is it a reason that

they're not letting the dugout challenge not really right it's other reasons it's other reasons but that could be a reason it could be all it's not the best vantage point certainly not so It is silly, yes, the tradition of objecting from there. But it's no sillier, I guess, than fans in the upper deck yelling at the empire, which happens, or in the bleachers, for that matter. So, yeah, that's a time-honored tradition. Okay. And two more. This one comes to us from Adam, who says, stupid off-season question.

Perfect. It's the time for that. Beautiful. Love it. If pitchers had the option to take a running start, would they use it? important caveat here note in this hypothetical the mound is still in use and pitchers still must deliver from the rubber so they have to like start like back by second base and like get a go at it adam says an ideal running start might involve running up the back of the mound running up that hill and launching oneself off the rubber

kung fu style to deliver the pitch control may suffer would guys get really good at this or just stick with boring stationary deliveries. I was going to say, I don't think that this would catch on very much. Control may suffer. That's probably an understatement. Yeah, I think that whatever, whatever possible velocity gain you might experience. And I don't even know that you would experience much of one. Right?

Yeah, because if you have to sort of stop short like that. Right, it's a different motion. Like you're not, you know, you're not. Yeah, you're kind of sapping some moments. Can you imagine a sidearmor trying to do this? Yeah, I was picturing some kind of Carter Caps hop or skip or something, but this is like... But like a full run. Yeah, that would be real.

If there were no restrictions and they could just do a running start, I think they would. I mean, you know, then you'd have cricket style polar deliveries. You know, you get a head start. Sure, I think that would make some sense. But then, yeah, if you have the mound and then you also still have to... beyond the rubber punching off it's just like a karate

you kick kind of delivery I wouldn't put it past someone mastering this and managing to harness but I don't think it would be widely employed probably yeah I don't think so either because I think your

command and control would both be severely compromised by it and guys would fall down You know, that's the other thing. Like, there would definitely be guys who fell down. And then who are you? You're Philip Rivers.

Do you want to be? You see that Philip Rivers, part of the motivation for him coming out of retirement is that it, like, extends his health benefits for another five years. That's nice. Yeah. I mean, it's nice. Does it say something terrifying about health care in this country? Yeah, or about the strength of the NFLPA, probably.

but yeah did he not make a good enough amount of money to not have to worry i mean i know he has a huge family he has a zillion kids so i'm gonna offer an explanation and i'm gonna sound more judgmental about it than i necessarily mean to be but he has like many children and um at a certain point you know you figure that gets expensive even if you're doing well which i think he he did and you know he's he doesn't strike me as um a particular A particularly lavish kind of guy, but he and his wife have 10 children. Yeah, and the grandchildren have already begun. Oh, really?

Oh, yeah. He has one. He just became a grandfather last year. Yeah. Oldest son Gunner. What is it with the Gunners, man? A lot of Gunners running around. A lot of gunners.

Yeah. That's definitely an extenuating circumstance when it comes to the health. health care coverage. If you have that many dependents, I guess. Wow. Yeah, I can't imagine. Junior-high sweetheart. Wow.

Wow. Let's see. Yeah, he earns, I'm just looking up quickly. I think he earned, like, close to $250 million. So, oh, did he really? Wow. Good for you. Good for you, Philip.

Divide that by the number of kids and potential grandkids, then he's still probably doing all right. Okay. Yeah. All right. And last question comes to us from Patreon supporter. Andrew. Okay, so we were just talking about the vantage point from the dugout and the positioning the catcher and all. Here's a hypothetical, Andrew says, that might be fun to think about now that

we're in the offseason. We are squarely in the off season. Please, keep the questions coming because we depend on you, some of these, you know, during the pharaoh periods. I don't know what we would do without email episodes. So, please. Just because I was dismissive of pitch off does not mean I wasn't appreciative of the email. I am grateful for the email because, yeah, this is some of our, this is some of our best material. Inevitably, we're going to get, okay, what if it were a competitive pitch off and what if you had, I don't even know what that would look like. We've had, we've done, you know, like what if you had two pitchers delivering pitches

simultaneously, but if it's a competitive pitch off so that you need to determine who gets to throw the first pitch, oh, so many possibilities. Okay. Whenever Ben brings up moving the mound back, I think of a similar idea, keeping the mound where it is, but moving the catcher back. Okay, so moving the, but not moving the plate, to be clear, I don't think. Just moving the catcher back, I think. So I don't think.

Well, we're about to hear, maybe, or discuss. I don't think you'd have to move him back much to have a noticeable effect on the game. I love this idea for a few reasons and think now would be a great time to do it. Okay, here's Andrew's case. ABS slash the challenge system is here. so the worst view the umpire gets would not matter as much. Fewer catchers getting hit with wild batter follow-throughs. Less concussion risk, reduced catcher injury in general.

Fewer catcher's interference calls. Who loves when a game breaks a certain way because the bat just brushes the catcher's mitt? Well, maybe Sam Miller. He gets a lot of posts out of that. But yes, I take the point. Higher premium on pitcher accuracy over breaking ball nasty. If you have a huge sweeper, would the catcher still be able to get to it? Your huge curve would also be more likely to bounce and get away.

Pitchers would have to balance getting strikeouts with a higher chance of a wild pitch. I think we'd see more hitable pitches and more balls in play, especially with runners in scoring position. So the idea that, yeah, if there's more break because the catcher's farther back and you're going to get more balls in the dirt and you have to put a premium on accuracy, and subtract some stuff so that you make sure that the ball is actually caught or that it's not a passed ball. Although I guess in this world where the catcher's farther back,

a wild pitcher pass ball might be a little less costly because it wouldn't get as far away maybe before it made it to the backstop. Okay, continuing. Catcher defense and athleticism is maintained in an ABS world. Your pitcher can throw nastier stuff if your catcher is good with the glove and a good blocker. He might look more like a hockey goalie back there. And they already look so much like hockey goalies, really. Stealing bases gets easier.

Further incentivizing getting on base and getting more fast guys on rosters. We might even see more attempts to steal home. Easy to implement across all levels and fields with relatively minor modifications. Moving the catcher back and implementing the steal first base on a wild pitch rule together would also make a bunch of sense to me. So the grand conclusion here, I think this could increase balls in play, increase offense, increase action on the base paths, maintain catcher defensive value in a post-framing world, and reduce injury risk. Curious to hear your thoughts, maybe this would not have as big an impact as I think it would, or games would turn into track meets, or games would go for four hours because balls are going to the backstop every other pitch. I think that balls would go to the backstop a lot. What do you think this would do, what do you think this would do to umpire accuracy?

Yeah, it would, would not be good. No. And so I think that you would end up, it might just add like a ton of length to the game, right? Yeah. Like you could end up with, not only do you have all of these potential wild pitches and stuff to the backstop, but like, are you just going to end up with a bunch of walks? Yeah. Yeah. I'm thinking, yeah, I don't think it would be good.

Because look, we have a good view of, well, if the centerfield camera is centered, then we have a good view of the pitch. And that's far away. Granted, it's zoomed in from our perspective. Like, if the umpire were farther back, but still centered and not obstructed, maybe it would make less difference. But if you're that far back, I'm thinking of the angles because the umpire is like overest, the catcher's shoulder. Right. Right. And so, unless you have a really tall umpire, then you'd be more likely to block the umpire's view, right? Or I guess they could stand up straighter because usually they

kind of crouch over a little bit. But yeah, they'd have to stand up straighter probably to get as good a line of sight on the pitch crossing the plate so as not to be blocked by the catcher who's still in front of them, but farther away from the plate. But yeah, I guess probably if you still have sort of the same angle than being farther away is not going to help the accuracy. And then you'd have to have maybe more challenges or just full ABS. And if you do full ABS, then maybe that like defeats the purpose of a lot of this because you're all the catcher athleticism preservation parts of this rule. So you'd have to add more challenges because of the more umpire mistakes.

And then you'd have more time. Right. I think it would just add so much time. Retrieving them. Yeah, that wouldn't be great. And then, yes, you would get more running, but it might just be non-competitive running. And I've already wrestled with whether we're verging on that now, whether it's just like the success rate is high enough that there's less suspense or it's less impressive when you steal lots of bases. And so, yes, it's more common, but each stolen base is less exciting. And so is there more net excitement because of it? I don't know. And in this world, if it's just like the catcher so far back that they can't even like get the ball to second on the fly with any mustard on it then right i don't know there'd be so much running you could probably just steal standing up like every time so that might defeat the purpose of having more running and then the other part i don't love about is that it doesn't address the core part of why

i've talked about the possible benefits of moving the mound back which is just like the the contact And I know that this is kind of like an indirect, maybe we'd get more contact because you would incentivize pitchers not to throw as hard or as nastily because they have to try to be more accurate, which could be true, I guess. But that's kind of like a double bank shot way of addressing that core problem, which is just that it's really hard to hit balls that are thrown as fast as they are from the same distance that they've been thrown from since 1893. with like modern pitch design and everything. And so I would rather just give the batter more reaction time, I think, than try to come up with some way. And, you know, I've said other things like one benefit of reducing the number of pitchers on the active roster would be that guys would have to go deeper into games and that would pay multiple dividends because, yeah, you'd get fewer pitching changes and starters would just be a bigger part of the game again. But also you'd have to take something off to pace yourself and that would lead to. to fewer strikeouts.

So there's more than one way to do it. But I do continue to think that as strong and quick and athletic as hitters have gotten, I don't think they can quite keep pace with the nastiness and increased speed of pitches thrown from the same distance that they've been thrown from for 130 years. And, you know, plus taller pitchers with longer reaches who were releasing the ball closer to the plate to begin with. So for all those reasons, I think the more direct way to address what I would see as the bigger problem is not this, but I see some virtues in it, I suppose.

Yeah, but they're limited relative to the drawbacks, which seem profound. It is, it's a good point that, like, moving mounds all over the country at all levels, not that you'd have to move it, you know, a little league necessarily, but that would require more money and expense than just moving the catcher back without moving the plate back. But then, yeah, and then what does that do? You know, I guess if you want like batting averages up and you want more hits, okay, there are going to be some tappers in front of the plate now that the catcher can't get to because he's so far back there.

Or it could bring back bunting as a maybe more viable option. So, you know, I'm all for bunting for hits, which can be exciting. So, yeah, you know, yeah. I don't totally hate it. There's something here, but I don't like it better than moving the mound back or even necessarily better than what we have now. I agree. You can, and if I had my druthers, will support Effectively Wild on Patreon

by going to patreon.com slash Effectively Wild and signing up to pledge some monthly or yearly amount. To help keep the podcast go and help us stay ad-free and get yourself access to some perks, As have the following five listeners, Sam Cunningham, Nathaniel Kane, Brian Riley, Michael Van Wickel, and Linus Marco, thanks to all of you. Patreon perks include access to the Effectively Wild Discord group for patrons only, shoutouts at the end of an episode, prioritized email answers, playoff live streams, monthly bonus episodes, personalized messages, discounts on merch and ad-free fangrifts memberships, and so much more. Check out all the offerings at patreon.com slash Effectively Wild. If you are a Patreon supporter, you can message us through the Patreon site. If not, never fear. You can contact us via email, send your questions, comments, intro, and outro themes to podcast at Fangraphs.com. You can rate, review, and subscribe to EffectivelyWild on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube music, and other podcast platforms. You can join our Facebook group at Facebook.com slash Effectively Wild. You can find the Effectively Wild subreddit at our slash Effectively Wild. And you can check the podcast post at FanGrafts or the episode description in your podcast app for links to the stories and stats recited today. Thanks to Shane McKean for his editing and production assistance. We'll be back with one more episode before the end of the week.

Talk to you then. Oh, yeah.