Effectively Wild: A FanGraphs Baseball Podcast - Effectively Wild Episode 2427: Holo Victory

Episode Date: January 16, 2026

Ben Lindbergh and Meg Rowley analyze the latest additions to the AL East: Ryan Weathers to the Yankees and Ranger Suárez to the Red Sox. Then (26:52) they bring on top-tier Patreon supporter Jon Norton to answer listener emails about players who’ve repeatedly signed one-year contracts, whether they would want to play in an MLB game, how impressive switch-hitting should be, WAR without players who took PEDs, and the all-time greatness of Star Trek legend Buck Bokai. Audio intro: Xavier LeBlanc, “Effectively Wild Theme” Audio interstitial: The Gagnés, “Effectively Wild Theme” Audio outro: Gabriel-Ernest, “Effectively Wild Theme” Link to FG post on Weathers Link to FG post on Suárez Link to team SP depth charts Link to team depth charts WAR Link to over/under draft standings Link to Cot’s Contracts Link to 2018 Passan tweet Link to Sam on playing in a game Link to decline of switch-hitting Link to holodeck wiki Link to holodeck malfunctions Link to Buck Bokai at Memory Alpha Link to WWIII at Memory Alpha Link to Star Trek Ringer MLB Show Link to listener emails database Link to scientific method wiki Link to MLBTR on Tucker  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

It's the zombie runner, Bobby Shanes, Bobby Shands. Joey Menaces, walk off three-run digger. Stop it. Walk off three-run shot. Oh, my God. Meg, he's the best player in baseball. Hello and welcome to episode 2427 of Effectively Wild, a baseball podcast from FanGraphs,

presented by our Patreon supporters. I am Ben Lindberg of the Ringer, joined by Meg Raleigh of FanGraphs. Hello, Meg. Oh, hello. We will be joined shortly by one of said Patreon supporters, John Norton, one of our top-tier supporters who will join us in a bit to answer some emails from other listeners. Before we get to him, though, we have two transactions to discuss. Yeah.

And as is often the case this off-season, they both involve acquisitions by American League East teams. So one was the Yankees who finally awakened from their off-season. from their off-season slumber, Brian Cashman has been disturbed from his hibernation and has made a trade with the Marlins for starting pitcher Ryan Weathers. And the Red Sox have responded to that acquisition. Probably not actually a response to that acquisition, but they did make their own acquisition. Subsequently, they signed Ranger Suarez, free agent to a five-year deal worth $130 million. So it's kind of in keeping with a lot of what we've seen. this offseason in the sense of ALE's teams that were already good getting better, but it is

out of step with what we've seen in that, hey, the Yankees actually did something. And the Red Sox signed a free agent because they had not done that. They had made multiple trades and major trades, but they had not signed any free agent at all this offseason. I think they were the last team to sign a free agent this offseason. And they haven't really signed a free agent. agent to a multi-year deal, like a legitimate multi-year deal, not sort of make-good pitcher coming off an injury kind of deal, at least during the Breslow years, right? And they have sort of shown a reluctance to sign pitchers in particular to long-term deals, and especially guys who are older than Ranger Suarez is. Maybe his relative youth is what made them go to five years for him,

not that that's that long, but he's only 30. Anyway, I guess we can take these in the order in which they were consummated. What do you make of the Marlins dealing yet another starter after trading Edward Cabrera to the Cubs, whom the Yankees were also interested in acquiring? And I guess those talks perhaps paid dividends and that they had already been discussing a different starting pitcher. And so maybe that led to the Ryan Weather's move when Cabrera went to Chicago. I think that, boy, they sure have a lot of confidence in the depth that they, have. That tends to be my thought for a lot of these, although I will say when evaluating that, that's

obviously useful to think about not only the guys who they have at the big league level right now, but the guys who they might have at the big league level in the near term. So, you know, we're all familiar with the Sandy Al Contras and the Uri Perez's and Max Meyer and Baxter and Gareth and Janssen Junk, who I just love saying Janssen Junk. It's the best. But, you know, as Baumann noted in the Cabrera trade write-up, as Keri noted in her write-up of this deal, like Thomas White and Robbie Snelly, are sort of lurking. And it seems like this may be, if you're with those guys, you have to be thrilled, right?

Because the odds that they get through a season without those guys, this is getting significant time in the majors in 2016, quite low. I want this to end up being a move that makes the ink. geese look really smart because it's just been hard to know what to make of Weathers in the course of his major league career because he's been hurt for a lot of it. But he seems to be adaptable. He's made some changes. He sort of in between IEL since last year kind of showed some improved stuff even if like the stats didn't quite line up with what you might expect based on the underlying quality of his pitches. So I think the Weathers is exciting and you know, I guess you got to have

something to do to pass the time before you finally come to terms with Cody Bellinger. So that seems okay. It's interesting from the Marlins perspective because and I'm not like saying anything particularly revolutionary here, but when they moved Cabrera,

they went and got a guy who's like, I think, almost certain to be on their opening day roster, right? Like they prioritized sort of a big league ready corner guy in Owen Casey and he's had big league time. This is a more like volume-based approach. with lower level guys who were much further away from the majors.

And, you know, I think that when Brendan looked at that group of guys to give Curie notes, he was sort of underwhelmed like a bunch of bench pieces, but maybe you hit on one of those guys and he sort of exceeds expectations or you have an idea in mind for how to better optimize a swing or what have you. So it's interesting to see them in sort of back-to-back moves, deploying multiple strategies as a way of seemingly bolstering the big league roster at the same time that they're reinforcing the minor league system. So that part's interesting to me. Yeah, as I expressed when we talked about the comparator trade, I remain skeptical about the Marlins

until proven otherwise, I guess, you know, that this isn't just sort of the endless cycling through players who are even approaching arbitration, let alone free agency, with an eye towards the future and just staying on that treadmill forever, essentially, and never really getting to the promised land, except a couple times that they did, of course, but then they immediately disassembled themselves. So I don't know. I guess I want to have some faith in the current Marlins decision makers that they have a plan here, and just by stockpiling prospects, they will sift through them, and they will get some gold, and that they think maybe they have a strength when it comes to pitching, and, you know, they certainly are subtracting from that surplus,

but as you said, they do have Major League arms that are ready to substitute for them. So, okay, I guess I see the vision, but until we see the vision actually come to fruition long term for more than a year at a time, really, for this franchise, it's just hard to have any faith if you're a fan. You've seen so many generations of promising players be moved and just prospects coming back. cheaper players, not coincidentally, and then as soon as they get good and start to make money,

they're off to another team too. So maybe this time will be different, but maybe not. So for the Yankees, this trade goes down 30 years after the trade of David Weathers, father of Ryan Weathers, from the Marlins to the Yankees. And I am quite confident that, yeah, I know, that Ryan Weathers will outperform his father, for the Yankees because David Weathers's career for the Yankees amounted to 26 and a third innings with a 9.57 ERA, more walks than strikeouts. That's a negative 1.0 baseball reference war, which is pretty impressive in that amount of playing time. So, yeah, I think that he will be better than that. By the way, David Weathers had a 19-year big league career. That's, you know,

that's impressive to me. I would have taken the under on that. that. He certainly was a staple of my youth in baseball, but still 19 years. That's long. But his time with the Yankees, not his most distinguished sin. So Weathers has upside. Like, he's got stuff and he's made some upgrades to his repertoire, seemingly. Although then he also continued to break a bit. And so I never know, like, you could look at his stuff last season and dream on what he could do in a full healthy season. with what he was throwing, but then did what he was throwing, and, you know, he added a slider, right, and he had just another tick on his fastball and everything. And who knows, if, you know, doing those things, throwing harder contributed to his being a bit breakable. But he's been a bit breakable for a while. So it's one of those weird situations where they needed rotation depth, and they're adding a guy who is not really the provider of depth. He's kind of the type who test. Right. the type who tests your depth more than anything, right?

So I guess the more of those guys you amass, the better. But they're looking at entering the season with Garrett Cole and Carlos Rodon still recovering from surgery. And you hope that they'll be back at some point. And I guess Clark Schmidt, too, who had internal brace repair. So you're down a few starters and you hope you'll get reinforcements at some point during the season. And so I guess you hope that Freed and Schlittler and Warren and Weathers. and heal can get you through things until your other guys get back. And then, you know, maybe if everyone's healthy, which is never the case, then you could

always consider moving someone to the bullpen. I'm sure Weathers would probably be a lights out reliever if they ever wanted to try him that way. But I'm sure they'd like to have him be a starter. And, you know, it's kind of an upside play, I guess. Like, I don't know if it'll satisfy Yankees fans. So what would? But I think in the absence of some.

major signing, then it's like we got the second most desirable Marlins starter, maybe. You can make a case that weathers will be better than Cabrera. That's possible, but that probably wouldn't be the baseline projection. So it's like we missed out on, you know, other top starters who got traded. We didn't get Freddie Peralta, or at least they haven't. And so we settled for the Marlins starter that the Cubs didn't get. So, you know, how much does that appease the fan base? But I don't mind the move at all in isolation, I think, given what they surrendered in exchange for Weathers, you know, even if he continued to be a pretty effective, if sporadically available starter, that might well work out for them because he's been, you know, pretty good in the innings that he has pitched over the past couple seasons. And there's potential for him to be even better on an inning per inning basis or to actually qualify.

qualify for the ERA title for once? I mean, even Ranger Suarez, who we'll talk about in a second, hasn't qualified for the ERA title in his career, and he just got $130 million deal. So that's not a prerequisite to be a successful, coveted starting pitcher these days. I'm just saying, you know, it's hardly a slam dunk move, like we did it, mission accomplished, off-season's a success, but it's a start. Now, you know, you don't want your off-season to essentially start in mid-January, but it's better than never having it start. And, you know, if they sign Bellinger and maybe there are other moves that they have up their sleeve here, they could just procrastinate and still get their work done because who among us hasn't done that.

Right. I mean, like, on the one hand, better to have your business result earlier. On the other hand, still plenty of brisk business to do out there, right? So it's not like it's really been them so far. And he's under team control for a few years. So, you know, it's always good to have someone like that, although, again, Again, that makes me more skeptical of the Marlins trading these guys who, if they are theoretically close to contention, could have helped them content in theory. But, yeah, to pry weather's away and not have to give up any of your top prospects, that's probably pretty nifty.

Yeah, I think that's a good bit of work if it's all just lower level dudes. So gave up a couple outfielder, a couple infielders. Two Dillins, though different Dillon spellings. There's Dylan Lewis, the D-I-L-L-O-N, and there's the Dylan J-S-O, J-S-O, J-O, D-Y-L-A-N. Yeah. And you recently expressed some desire for people to get on the same page when it comes to the spellings of same-sounding names. But, yeah, Marlins doubling down on Dillans here. So that's one move, and we'll see whether that's a precursor to additional Yankees' transactions and acquisitions.

The Red Sox, though, they have maybe kind of capped off a successful offseason. I mean, they may well not be done even after signing Ranger Suarez. But this is a pretty, I think, impressive investment on their part because they didn't necessarily need a starting pitcher. Because I think before they made this move, they had the best projected rotation, according to the fan graph step charts. And now they do by even first. more. And this is a really impressive group because they've got garic crochet at the top, plus gray and Suarez both acquired this offseason. And then you're looking at Brian Bayo as what a fourth starter, you know, Johann Oviedo, whom they also acquired this offseason, your fifth starter or

something. And then they go like 10 deep with guys who would be viable back of the rotation pitchers at least. They have Patrick Sandoval. They have Patent Tully and Connolly Early, who impressed at times last year. They have Carter Crawford. They got Kyle Harrison. So the old maxim that I coined about how you can never have enough pitching, I think they are really ensuring that they might actually have enough pitching. You know, famous last words, but that's a nice change because in recent seasons, they have not had enough pitching, especially like top of the rotation type pitching, you know, for stretches of even last season. It was like crochet's incredible, but then what?

And now it's solid, top to bottom. It's so interesting to watch the Red Sox and the Cubs do this thing where they're like, well, what if we just accumulate a bunch of guys at basically the same position? And then we'll just have a crazy store of them to deal from. Right? Like, they're not going to, I understand you can never have too much pitching, whatever, but they have so many guys. They have so many guys.

I have to imagine that they do some sort of consolidation trade, and they could decide not to do that and just be like, hey, this is the offseason we're spending big money and still go sign Bo Bichet, right? But if they don't, and Bo Bichet goes to the Phillies, well, then the Phillies have an infield surplus. And, hey, Ranger Suarez just signed with the Red Sox. So maybe you need a starter.

So just do a little swap-a-do, you know? Like it's so, or call the Cubs and be like, hey, Alex Bregman, he's there now. What do you think about some of our guys? You know, you need a dude. Meg and Ben keep saying you need a dude. You have some interesting arms. We like some of your guys. But Meg and Ben keep saying you need a dude.

And we got dudes. And we need an infield dude. So maybe we do some of the. little business about one of our dudes for one of your infield dudes. It is funny because, yeah, last time we talked about the Bregman signing and what this means for the Red Sox and we talked about the Cubs and should they deal from an infield surplus or should they just hold their hand and profit, which I was in favor of. But if they are going to trade Horner or Shaw or someone, then suddenly the Red Sox seem like sort of a logical

destination possibly. So instead of getting Bregman, having him leave and go to the Cubs, Maybe then they end up with one of the people that Bregman displaced in Chicago. Who knows? We'll see. But, you know, the primary takeaway, I guess for me, is that last time even when we talked about the Red Sox, we were talking about how good they are and the young guys they have and the extensions they've signed some of them to and everything. But they hadn't really made a splash in free agency in a while.

And now they have done that. So kudos to them. Kudos to them, you know. And I really like Rangers Wards. I really like watching him pitch. And so I'm glad he got paid because he's fun to watch. And it's nice when the guys who are fun to watch get paid.

And, you know, he's been, because he's been hurt at various stretches and wasn't always a full-time starter, like he hasn't made a ton of ton of money either. That's nice for him to go make some money. And now, I mean, look, we talked about how they have, all of these names, and I'm sure that their rotation will have more than, feature more than five

guys over the course of an entire season, but it's just a much, it's a much higher caliber front to back, right? Like, they've had some of the names that you mentioned, like, PAYO's been there, and they've had guys, and they haven't really grabbed, like, that two, three spot, you know? And so they went and got a guy who's sort of an unquestioned two or three, you know, depending on how you feel about gray. So, yeah. This worked out well for me in the effectively wild free agent contracts over underdraft. I did have the over on Suarez at 115, which was MLP Trade Rumors projection.

But it was similar to what Ben Clemens had and what the fan crafts crowdsource had. Ben's, Ben's was bang on. Yeah, that's right. Yeah, he nailed it. and AAB spot on. Yeah. So this just seemed like a reasonable deal. Yeah.

Zips was like, yeah, that's about what I'd give him. I think it was off by like, you know, five, six million dollars. So it seems like they kind of dialed it in just right. And I don't know whether the Phillies now having lost Suarez, whether they repurpose some of that money and they go after Bichette or someone else. Yeah, there's this little like musical chairs sort of situation happening with a limited number of teams here. it seems. And Suarez, he is not the typical power pitcher profile. That's for sure that teams are often looking for. But I see some people will use the phrase smoke and mirrors, which I think implies that it's unsustainable, maybe. It's not smoke and mirrors. There's definitely

illusion and deception and everything going on there, but I think it's a sustainable smoke and mirrors. He makes it work. He fools hitters, and you can kind of identify how he does it. And I know I saw a lot of people say, oh, the Red Sox, they finally splurged on a free agent, and it's a lefty pitcher, kind of a crafty lefty to boot in Fenway. And that doesn't fit the typical profile. He's almost too young to be a crafty lefty, but he's crafty beyond his years. He's precocious in the craftiness department. And I think he could be fine in Fenway, because, you know, we probably overrate park effects sometimes. but also he mostly keeps the ball on the ground in most seasons,

and he does not surrender a lot of pulled fly balls to righties that could just hammer off or over the monster, even though you'd think that it would be easy to get around on his stuff, because, you know, he throws like 90-91. And I remember earlier this off-scene, I think, when Kyle Hendricks retired, we bantered a bit about, is he the last of his kind, and will there be another Kyle Hendricks, and how would that pitcher get developed?

And Hendrix is a righty and Suarez as a lefty, so he's not exactly the heir to Kyle Hendrix's, you know, finesse pitcher thrown. But he sort of is that kind of pitcher. He just has, like, pinpoint command and manages to get a decent number of strikeouts, even though he doesn't get a lot of whiffs. You know, he's not getting tons of swings and misses, but he gets called strikes. Like, he tunnels really well as best we can tell,

hides the difference between his pitches and, you know, has a separation between his fastball and his change-up, even though his fastball isn't that fast. And he just seemingly repeatedly induces pretty weak contact. Not that he's like a huge ERA versus FIPP guy. I mean, you know, there's a little bit of a differential there where he's had lower ERAs than FIPS, but it's not a massive gap. But he just, he doesn't walk anyone. He keeps the ball in the park. Yeah. He gets soft contact, he puts pitches where he wants them. He obviously has a track record of postseason success whenever he's been tasked with postseason starts. He has generally risen to the challenge. So yeah, like I guess you could be wary of, oh, if he's only 30 and he's throwing 90 now,

then what does this look like a few years from now? And is there like a cliff where he loses a tick or two and suddenly it all falls apart? And it's kind of dependent on having some minimum threshold of speed that he is able to achieve. I guess that's possible. I guess there's collapse potential. But, you know, when it isn't there with any pitcher, really. So he's been quite solid. And he's a really nice addition to that stuff.

Yeah, I agree. What's the best team in this division? I honestly, I don't know. Because, like, you look at the Fangraph's team depth charts, and this is purely projected. war not taking into account schedule. Yes. And obviously all of these ALE's teams will be beating up on each other, which will impact their records. But just in terms of talent, the Dodgers are on top. Then it's Blue Jays, Yankees, Braves, Mariners, Red Sox. So you have three ALEs teams in the top six.

And then it goes Mets Orioles. So half of the top eight are AALEs teams. I mean, it's like total powerhouse and all of them you know, with the exception of the Yankees, for the most part, have really been busy and aggressive and upgraded this offseason. So the Blue Jays maybe have sort of won the offseason, I guess, if we were to prematurely declare a winner and they might not be done. But the Red Sox are right up there, neck and neck with them. The Orioles aren't far behind either. And each time I look at one of these rosters, especially the Blue Jays and the Red Sox, it's like whichever one I looked at last seems to me to be stronger and the favorite. in this division. And I honestly don't know.

I think they're both really strong teams. And the projections would have us believe that the Yankees are neck and neck with them. Yeah. I think that, I mean, it's really nice to have an Aaron Judge helps a lot. But yeah, it's going to be,

I think, a real knockdown dragout. And in a way that isn't, it always projects well the AL East. Like, there are very rarely years where, you know, at least three of the teams aren't thought to be.

some of the best ones in the American League entering the season. But just in terms of the work that several of those clubs, not all of them, have done to bolster their rosters, it really does seem like it's going to be a dozy of a division. Yeah. And the Red Sox, they have the young guys you could project further growth from, or at least more playing time, you know, a full season of Roman Anthony. That's exciting. So even though there are still some question marks and yeah, And yeah, it just, it seems like there's too much depth, which is a good problem to have. But you do kind of wait for the other shoe to drop, or is there some other move that just consolidates things? And you could say that about the outfield, too, because they have really four very viable major league outfielders.

And there are only three outfield positions. And yeah, and that's not even taking into account. Yoshita, who as I said the other day, just doesn't really seem to fit. And even though he could maybe still hit is maybe not their best option. But what do you even do with that outfield? How do you fit all those guys in? So they were kind of in a spot where it seemed like they would maybe want to trade a hitter for pitching. But then they sign Wrenter Suarez.

And so they don't really need to trade for pitching. They don't. And yet it's almost like the virtue would be in freeing up playing time. more than actually upgrading weak spots unless they were to get a good infielder who, you know, they could improve there, which is why people were maybe matchmaking them with Bregman or Bichette or whoever else. So I guess, I guess that's a possibility. But man, that's just, that's a strong, it's a strong roster. It's a strong group. They project to have the fifth best bullpen right now, too. So find the weak spot. It's not particularly weak. That's going to be a heck of a race, really.

And again, it's like the remaining top free agents on the market largely linked to ALE's teams, whether it's Tucker or Bellinger, there are AOEs teams that are very much in the running or Bichet, for that matter. So I look forward to when the dust settles, and I do still hope to stat blast that somehow just to see how this stacks up to previous ALEs or just previous times that a division has dominated the offseason in terms of accruing more net war than it has lost. from the past season, something like that, I imagine the numbers would be pretty eye-opening. So I hope to have them for you all at some point. But now we have emails for you and an email answerer. I'm just a podcast, ma'am. You supper, effectively wild.

Oh, time, let's dad blast, beef, boys, don't shwebets, a stupid. All right, we are joined now by top-tier, trout-tier, Patreon supporter, John Norton, who has been waiting patiently for his podcast appearance, and now it has arrived, as has he. Hello, John. Hello, hi, Ben. Hi, Meg. Hi.

Hi. And as you may know from past Patreon person appearances, I always lead off by asking what could have possibly possessed you to support us at. this elite tier. It had been my birthday and I decided to treat myself by honoring my favorite podcast with a donation. And I think I've been listening to you guys for about 15 years now. Wow. At least the podcast itself. Yeah, I guess we're not quite that old, but we're not, we're getting there. Yeah, it's, let's see, this year will be 14, I guess.

Oh, 14. Okay. Huh. So, yeah, unless you were eavesdropping on our personal conversations before we started recording, then it hasn't quite gotten to 15, but we're not far from there. Okay, maybe 13 years anyway. Yeah. I remember my son being very young when I was listening to it. Actually, it's kind of a funny story. He was like two years old or something sitting in the backseat of the car. And I started playing this podcast, and he asked, where's Ben?

I guess you were taking the day off. Oh, I missed one. That was rare. Yeah, no wonder he was surprised back back in those. days. And now he must be just about a fully grown person, I guess. You know, he's 15. Yeah. Yeah. We're old, I guess, is the takeaway here. And so is this podcast. But as good as ever, I hope. And you're still with us after all these years. So we must be doing something right. Well, we appreciate your support. And glad that you decided to treat yourself with this podcast

appearance and also treat us in the process. And since you were here from the start, we're you a baseball prospectus reader at the time, or how did you stumble across effectively wild? I think I found effectively wild through hang up and listen. Oh, okay. And even older podcast than this one. One that is still going, hopefully, strong, I hope, and also involves me. So tell us a little bit about your baseball background as a fan or follower of the sport. So let's see. So, well, I grew up in northern Indiana, so I was a Cubs fan. I first got interested actually in Sabermetrics just kind of by chance. I haven't to be hanging around the mall waiting for my wife.

And I went to the bookstore in the mall and they had Bill James' historical baseball abstract. And I just realized there was a lot of interesting stuff in there. Yeah. So you've been on board for quite a while. You've witnessed quite an evolution. And are you still a Cubs fan or are you just sort of a fan of the sport? I guess I'm more of a Red Sox fan now because they live in the Boston area. Oh, okay. So you must be torn about the Alex Bregman signing slash non-sign. Yeah, one of your teams got him. One of them lost him. I guess you get Breggman either way, so you're happy. Maybe. That's right. Yeah. Plus we have Suarez now. Yes, that cushions the blow, the departure, too. And to the extent that you care to share, what do you do or where are you located these days? Sure, no problem. Yeah, I live in the metro Boston area. And I'm a statistician. I'm a statistician. in the pharmaceutical industry.

Wow. Oh, interesting. So, yeah, you have a PhD in statistics. Well, I guess that maybe makes sense why Bill James' work appealed to you for the idea of cybermetrics in general right up your alley. So you told me via email that you had a proposal for free agency that you'd care to share. So I don't know what it is, but lay it on us. Sure.

So, okay. So this was kind of coming from my background in Pharma. So I was thinking, a baseball player is actually kind of like a drug. Let me explain. Please do explain, yeah. So when a company is developing a drug, they make a very large upfront investment. Oh, I see, yeah. And just like when you sign a free agent contract, you're also making a very large upfront investment,

and you being a team. And, you know, the risks and the rewards are very uncertain, right? So what occurred to me was that, let's say there were, and sometimes, companies share the risks, the costs and rewards of developing something. So I was thinking two teams could do the same thing with the player. Like let's say

the going rate for a certain free agent is say $300 million. Two teams could split the cost and then somehow they would have to, of course, split that person's services like maybe have odd year, even year. I mean, there's a lot of wrinkles

to this, I'm sure, that one could criticize. But that was the basic idea like split the cost and then and then split the rewards of hiring that player. So sort of a free agent timeshare. A time share, yes, exactly. Yeah, maybe doing alternating years. I was going to say, it would be interesting to see how this appealed to people. There would be any number of potential issues, I suppose, but it seems like a young man's endeavor, right? Because if you're like 30 and you're a free agent, I think your team knows that the value you're bringing in the contract may well be concentrated in the first couple of years, like if you sign for

five years, if you're alternating year after year and you get the like cliff year where the decline really sets in, well, you'd feel, you'd feel pretty annoyed by that, presumably. But how would you know? So maybe you could get like a discount, the ratio of the contract could change over time, you know, whereas you get deeper into the, I'm trying to make it work. I guess even if you're, trying to sort of hedge against the risk, you probably have to pay a premium to get the player to agree to this arrangement, right? Because your typical free agent isn't going to want to do this, right? And so maybe that kind of undoes whatever you get out of. And, you know, I guess you're sort of spreading the risk around, but also the potential reward, because if this guy is good,

then you're all having him half the time. I guess, yeah, you'd have to work it out so that the timeshare probably wouldn't be with a division rival. It had to be someone in another league that you don't play as often. Oh, interesting point, yeah. Yeah. And then, because if you're a free agent, probably, I guess it's sort of a hedge for the player, too, in a sense, because if that team tanks, right? If that team stinks or he ends up not liking where he signed or something, then he gets to play somewhere else part of the time. But also, seems pretty disruptive. just in terms of your personal life. And you know, you got to maintain multiple residences and your family is living here one

year and there another year and your kids are transferring schools or who knows, you're kind of commuting. So that seems potentially problematic. So you'd probably have to pay more to get someone to agree to that. And then maybe you're not really reaping any of the rewards of decreased risk that you set out to in the first place. I wonder if everyone who wanted to do this would end. up concentrated with like the Diamondbacks and then the Florida teams because it's like,

well, if you have to maintain two residences, you may as well have one of them be in a place where you might do spring training. Yeah. Then you can at least stick around. Or I guess even same city teams that are in different leagues, right? Yeah. Cubs, white socks, Yankees, Mets or something. Yeah.

Although the Yankees would probably just want to buy the whole contract, right? Maybe. Not these days. Yeah, not these Yankees. I guess the Yankees and the Mets are sharing a lot of players these days. It's so that the Mets keep acquiring ex-Yakis. But yeah, those teams in the same cities, they tend to have a rivalry, even if it's not head-to-head in the standings or in the division. Obviously, you're fighting for fans' affections.

And I wonder what that would do to your standing in that city and your fan base because everyone hates you, probably, right? Because you can't have it both ways. You can't kind of play for both sides. I think they would probably both fan bases would disown you because you have not committed fully to either of them, right? And so. Yeah, if they were rivals, I guess that could be problematic. But otherwise, we don't see any shoes. Yeah, other than that, smooth sailing.

Yeah, there'd be conspiracies about you being some sort of double agent or something. It's like you sign with this team and now you're trying to sabotage that other team on off years. When I was a teenager, I would, I don't. I hope neither sets of my parents were listening to this. If I knew that there was a party

I wanted to go to, I would try to be at my dad's house instead of my mom's because my curfew was an hour and a half later at my dad's and it wasn't my mom

so I would like arbitrage curfews. I don't know what the free agent equivalent of that is but I feel like there's got to be something right?

You're trying to game the system. Facial hair. Well, I guess all the teams allow facial hair now, but you know. Right, yeah.

Otherwise you could Right. Yeah, You'd have to grow it and then shave it. And, you know, people like switching up their looks from one year to the next. Yeah, maybe that's it. Maybe that's the free agent equivalent of wanting to drink, you know, Rainier Tall Boys in Seattle Public Parks.

Yeah. Or if you're a two-way player, if you're Otani, you sign with a team that's renowned for great pitcher development and you pitch for that team and you hit for the other team. That doesn't really work because he does both in the same game. And also, I guess he could just sign with the Dodgers who are believed to be good at both. everything. So that's maybe more efficient. But yeah, we have considered some hypotheticals in the past that are more along the lines of someone who's just a mercenary and is kind of, you know, hawking their wares, applying their trade from start to start or week to week and just kind of

auctioning off their services just sequentially throughout the season. We have an email that's sort of along those lines. But yeah, that idea of just like, well, you could just be a starting pitcher and say, I will start the next game for the highest bidder. And then whoever wants me the most, I will go there, just, you know, like have glove wheel travel kind of arrangement. And I remember considering the clubhouse ramifications of that, because you'd never fit in anywhere and everyone would look at you as some kind of carpetbagger wherever you went. And mercenary. Yeah. Right. So the other thing that Christmas, though, I guess, is it's not totally unlike developing a a drug, right? Because you develop a player. The idea with developing a drug is that you

pour a ton of money into the R&D, and then if it's effective, then it's highly lucrative for you, right, as long as you hold the patent or whatever until someone produces the generic version, right? And so the idea is that, well, you maybe want to encourage the companies to pour money into research and development, especially if the government's not going to do it, because that's the only way that you end up with effective therapies, but then the problem is that, of course, maybe those companies want to profit a little too much, and then they end up gouging the intended recipients, et cetera, right?

And then maybe you need some price controls on that. Anyway, the point is that that's the model, I guess, is that you spend a lot of money up front because you hope that it will be worth your while in the long run. But that does, I guess, already apply to player development in baseball, right? because in baseball, you draft a player and you give them a big bonus, and in some cases at least, and then you cultivate their talent as they work their way up through the minors and everything, and you're not really seeing a direct return in those years.

But then if they develop into a productive big leaguer, then the whole arbitration, free agency system is sort of set up for teams to profit from that for the first several years of that player's career. And I guess when you reach free agency, that's when that wears off for the team, maybe. Like, maybe that's when the generic drug is developed or something and you lose control of that market maybe. But for the first few years, especially in the pre-arb years, then you're making money hand over fist on that player and everything that you sunk into their development. If it pans out, you're rewarded, I don't know, a hundredfold or something just because they're giving you so much more production than you could get. on the open market for equivalent play. That's an interesting point.

Yeah, it's definitely a thing of the free agent stage, but I guess there's probably some analogy to make earlier, too. Yeah, interesting. Okay. All right, well, let's discuss some other interesting hypotheticals, and I guess sticking with the theme, this is sort of a similar question from listener Harry, subject line lifelong pillow contract earnings question.

And Harry says, the Bregman and Alonzo pillow contracts from last year brought up my mind again. By the way, can you call it a pillow contract if it is a multi-year deal and the player ends up opting out? I don't know if I would call that a pure pillow. I think Bregman's deal is a pillow. It was just understood he was likely to opt out. You know what I mean? Yeah.

But there's at least multi-year potential to it. I kind of think of like the platonic pillow contract being Adrian Beltray with the Red socks or something where it's just like you really are signing for one year and you're then hoping that it's a soft landing and then you can parlay that into a bigger long-term deal. Whereas with Bregman or Alonzo, there was at least a multi-year pact and there was pillow potential because you could opt out and capitalize if you had a good year. But if you didn't have a good year, then you would still have some security longer term. So I don't know. I guess it's it's pillow-ish. It's pillow adjacent.

But this is what made Harry ask this question. Some players like Nelson Cruz and Josh Bell seem to get one-year contracts and play for practically every team at a decent average annual value. Which players have the greatest lifetime earnings getting one-year contracts for seemingly forever and having a productive career despite not getting that luxurious long-term deal every player strives for? So basically someone who went year by year for their whole career and it actually, worked out for them, which I think is also a situation we've considered on the podcast, like, should more players do that? Because if you bet on yourself and that bet keeps paying off, then it could benefit you, of course. So I put this question to Jeff Euston, who operates COTS contracts, because I thought he might have some names at hand. And he writes that this is a

question perhaps tied to player health. The prime example that comes to mind, is Noah Cindergard, who had one-year deals throughout his career, even as a free agent. Pitchers have it rough. They do well just to stay healthy for six years. Two other names come to mind, Jeff's mind, that is, but they both got multi-year deals eventually. Edwin Jackson signed a four-year deal with the Cubs at age 29, but otherwise was year-to-year while pitching almost everywhere. And, of course, a name familiar to effectively wild listeners, and a name that came to my mind as I was reading this question,

Rich Hill signed for three years with the Dodgers at age 37, but had one-year contracts every other year of his career. That probably had a lot to do with his role, starter, reliever, swingman, as well as middling production. How dare you, Jeff? And stuff. How dare you double. Another group of perennial candidates for one-year deals are position players hovering around league average production, often role players. Mike Talkman seems to be there now. Tommy Fam, effectively wild favorite.

but Gio Urchella, Adam Frazier, Thai France. The one premium player who comes to mind is late model Roger Clemens, who was year-to-year for the last five years of his career in New York and Houston. And, yeah, we've talked about that Clemens model, which is almost sort of similar to what you were laying out, John. But, yeah, just kind of going year-to-year and who wants me most and also who will give me the best deal, so I don't have to travel more than I want to or whatever.

So it is hard to come up with an example of someone who really had a long, lucrative, productive career and never signed a multi-year deal and just went year-to-year forever. And of course, you know, every player essentially signs a multi-year deal at the beginning of their professional career when they signed their first contract and they're under team control for several years. But even after reaching free agency, yeah, it just doesn't happen all that often because if you're really good, then you tend to command a long-term deal at some point, or if you're healthy, right? So if you're Cinderguard, who obviously was good for a while, but then didn't stay good and got hurt. But if he had continued to pitch at a high level,

then maybe he could have signed a long-term deal at some point. Yeah, you know, I was just saying there's a certain kind of asymmetry here where, like, long-term contracts really are really more important to the players, right, in the sense that because, a player actually has a risk of getting injured, right? It's like, you know, the Yankeers, whatever team is, you know, won't suddenly stop having money, you know, but if the player gets severely injured, they may not be able to play anymore. So I think in general, it's really in the, in the players' interests to have the long-term contract, you know, no matter how

appealing it may be to be open to any bidder every year. Yeah, and I guess for some of the same reasons we were citing earlier when we were talking about your proposal, is just that it's kind of a pain to move a lot. As Meg and I have remarked often, moving stinks, even if you're very wealthy and you can afford to streamline that process and have people back for you and stuff. It's just, it's still, it's tough to just uproot your life, especially if you have other people in your life who are traveling with you. And so ultimately, everyone just does decide to sign that multi-year deal if they can.

But it is an intriguing idea of just knowing. I'm taking my chances because, of course, you could get paid a premium if you just went year to year and you've stayed good and stayed available for a really long time, then you would make much more money than you would otherwise, because obviously there's a tradeoff when a team sends you to a long-term deal. They extend a lower average annual value as a consequence of that. I tend to think that this demonstrates the stabilizing effective agents because we don't see guys like wanting to. go year to year, but surely in a population of like confident young men, someone out there is like, I want to bet on me every year. Yeah, yeah. And they don't really do that.

I mean, I think that there are times when guys do in a calculated way, and it isn't always bad to take the pillow contract. We see that payoff for guys all the time, but it does come with risk. Obviously, the answer is pretty different for position players versus pitchers, too, because, like, if you blow out, what are you going to do? You know, I hate to invoke the name, but I guess it is relevant here. This is something that a pre-discrased Trevor Bauer did express a desire to do. That's right. It was his intention at one time. I am looking at a tweet from Jeff Passon back in 2018. Trevor Bauer says he's never signing a long-term

deal, only one-year contracts. Why? Turns out he made a bet with a friend if he ever signs a multi-year deal. The friend gets to shoot him in the nuts with a paintball gun from 10 feet away. And you know what? I don't know that many people would be upset if that had happened, knowing what we know about Trevor Bauer. And I guess even Trevor Bauer ultimately did sign a multi-year deal with the Dodgers, right? Which they had reason to regret. One of his friend collected. Yeah.

I hope so. But, you know, even that deal had opt-outs after the first couple of years, which obviously weren't exercised because Trevor Bauer. but this was something that he expressed a desire to do, having confidence in his ability to, I guess, stay healthy and have his arm be intact. So we'll never know whether he would have stuck to that or whether it would have worked out for him. I assume that eventually someone will come along with the same idea, if not the same rationale. And maybe we'll see whether it works out for them, too. But people appreciate security. Now, obviously, given the amount of money, that players make these days, you could say that they do have security.

They certainly have security, as most of us would define financial security. You know, you sign one-year deal for 20 million or whatever. Most of us would consider that being sort of set for life, right? So if you have made that amount of money, then you could, right? And it's just like what's the marginal value of the next 20 million or 200 million or whatever it is. So, you know, I could see someone reaching that conclusion and saying, well, I have enough to get by if something goes south. But then again, I guess you could also say, I have enough,

and therefore I don't necessarily have to absolutely maximize my earnings at the cost of... Right, yeah, you don't have to max out every deal necessarily. Yeah. That said, I think most free agents do, right? Or they try to, right? It's not common that free agents will take sizable pay cuts or hometown discounts or something. It happens sometimes. But yeah, you could say, you know, why subject myself to the vagaries of health and not knowing where I'm going to play and not being able to plan my personal life long term and everything if it's just a matter of making just unimaginably more money when I already have more than I ever dreamed I would.

That's funny. People don't. People don't really seem to think that way, though, in general. No, no, they don't. And I guess that's part of the way that people who end up with an enormous amount of money end up with an enormous amount of money end up with an enormous. miss a amount of money because they can never get enough. Okay. Here is one from listener Matt. I was listening to your conversation about Michael Lorenzen joining the Rockies. And while you two discussed his two-way aspirations and how Colorado was the perfect place to test them, my mind wondered. How dare you? Your mind wondered while listening to effectively wild.

Rood. And I began to imagine whether I would want to play for the Rockies. I was usually the worst or one of the worst players on my team at every level, but I nonetheless dreamed of playing in the majors as a little kid. I have no doubt that if I were somehow on the Rockies, I would not only be the worst player in the league, as would likely every effectively wild listener, even if I'd probably be worse than most. Hey, I'm sure there are some players who occasionally listen to us. If only the ones who have been on the podcast, they have, in a way, heard effectively wild and listened. But by far, the worst MLB player ever, by far. And that's a lot. And that. And that's, would come with a virality and media circus that would likely be pretty unpleasant. But I do wonder

if the chance to play ball to tour every big league city and ballpark to see the country and meet all these players, that that would be too good to pass up. I also think that while likely most fans and the Stephen A. Smith types would roast me, if he, you know, bothered to talk about baseball, which doesn't happen all that often, there would be a contingent rooting for the everyday schlub, as my partner put it. Years ago, I remember Sam and Ben discussing the war of a random person playing in the majors, but mine is a more personal and emotional question. Would you knowingly be by far the worst big leaguer ever and step into that media circus and infamy for the chance to chase the dream? I think this is something Sam and I considered at some point in ancient, effectively

wild history as well. And I know Sam wrote about it for ESPN and about whether you should want to do this. And I think he concluded no. But what do you think, John? Would you want to be the worst MLB player ever? I guess it kind of depends on how much of your self-esteem depends on your athletic performance. Like, you know, I don't really think of myself as a jock, so like, you know, being like the worst MLB player ever might be a step up, I guess. Or just, you know, it might be just kind of fun, but, you know, but I could see, like, I don't know, if someone was like, you know, had a pretty good, like, solid high school or college career who, you know, maybe takes pride in being a good athlete, then that'd be pretty deflating.

I like the idea of, like, stepping into a scrum of reporters, and they're trying to find a tactful way to be like, so, hey, you were really bad tonight. What do you think about that? And you're just like, I'm doing great. You should see me tonight compared to high school. I'm on the open up. It's really bad tonight. I'm terrible every night. What are you talking about?

You're surprised? Yeah. Doesn't get better than this, baby? Yeah. Yeah, no, I would not. want to do this, no. I mean, for one thing, I never really had aspirations of playing. I never dreamed of playing, you know, maybe partly because I was just realistic, but also because I just, I didn't really want that lifestyle. Maybe that sounds hard to believe, but there's just, there's so much that goes

along with being a professional athlete that doesn't really appeal to me. Obviously, there are a lot of aspects of it that do sound appealing, you know, the aforementioned mega contracts that we were just talking about. But, but no, I guess I never really loved playing enough to want to do that at that level, because, you know, I was an okay baseball player. And I, I stopped playing before I was forced to, you know, like they didn't tear the uniform off my back. Like, I didn't get to the point where people were even throwing hard enough or throwing nasty enough pitches that I realized I couldn't hit them. So it wasn't that so much. Got you retired. The right time. Yeah, I walked away on my own terms, which was just like, I have to go to practice on the

weekend, no thanks. I'd rather play video games or read a book or something. So, you know, much as I liked playing and still like playing in an informal fashion and just meeting up with friends or something, but the competitive aspect of it never really appealed to me. So I didn't really want to test my middle and my might on the fields exactly. I kind of like just playing recreationally. So I did not have the eye of the tiger when it came to kind of playing sports. I just, I had fun, you know, I just like a laid back game where everyone has fun. So I don't have the, the pro athlete mentality, let alone the talent. And yeah, if I were to do this, it would feel and be entirely unearned, obviously. So I wouldn't feel as if I had accomplished anything, right? Like I,

none of the cachet that comes along with being a big leaguer, there's a reason why that's sort of a high status job because it's so hard to do and you have to make so many sacrifices to do it and you have to be part of the point of 1 or whatever percent of the population that has the skill and works hard enough to do it and everything. And so if you just skip everything and just somehow, I don't know if it's like a pay-to-play scheme or what, you just get to do this for whatever really. reason, then I don't think any of the typical benefits would be conferred upon you. And it would just be almost all downside, I think. I don't really know that it would actually be that pleasurable a pastime for you. I guess I could see this being kind of like a fantasy camp scenario. You know, we're just sitting on the bench for a week or something, you know. Yeah, that, okay, yeah, sure. Like just kind of getting to live the big league lifestyle without actually playing. Like you're just kind of, you're just kind of, You get to hang out.

Yeah, you get to hang with the players. You get to travel with the players. Live in big league luxury. You know, get to know them. That I could see being appealing, maybe. And that is, I guess, why they offer fantasy camps and stuff like that and why you can kind of do that if you want to with former players or whatever. And you can sort of indulge that dream without the downsides because there aren't such stakes. Because I actually, I don't think there would be a very big contingent rooting for.

this person because I think it would be seen as a very self-centered selfish activity. I mean, maybe for a game or something, it would be interesting just sort of as an experiment to see like how bad an average person would be. And maybe it would be kind of relatable to sort of see yourself in that player. And, you know, you're the ultimate underdog, I guess, except that you're not really because you're, you're kind of like privilege, you know, you're, you're, you're, jumped up, you're placed in this position without having done anything to deserve it. So I don't think anyone really would be rooting for you. They would just be like stop hogging the spotlight. Especially fans of the team would hate you, right? Like even if you hurt the team, right?

Yeah, exactly. Imagine if you got, if it was like the final out of the game, you know. Right, yeah, glad you get to live your, your dream here. Meanwhile, you just made us lose. So thanks a lot. Yeah, no, even if you were one of the fans, I think they would quickly turn on you because you made it all about you. And in a way, it's being a bad fan because you're tanking the team's fortunes. You're sabotaging the team for your own personal pleasure and gain. I could imagine, like, if other people don't know, right, if they think that you just got there somehow and you didn't insist on playing and you knew things. Like, what if you were you and you had like an understanding of Sabermatrics and you had some statistical acumen and you're just like hanging in the dugout? Well, maybe could you play badly enough but in a small enough dose that they're like, well, we don't want them on the team.

But maybe it should be a coach. Like could you parlay it into a useful bit of business with the team? You wouldn't be making big league money anymore. But that might be okay. Like maybe you just want to be around, you know? Maybe. Yeah. Yeah.

Although I think you kind of have to like earn your spot sort of. So you're right. If you have actual wisdom to impart and you're contributing in some way, you're giving and not just taking, then I think your presence could be tolerated or welcomed. But, well, that actually reminds me. Sam and I sort of had this opportunity, not in the majors, but in the Pacific Association. and it is definitely something we talked about just in order to basically get a baseball reference page for us, you know? Oh, yeah.

Yeah, if we had just inserted ourselves into a 2015 Sonoma Stoppers game, we'd be on baseball reference, and wouldn't that be kind of cool? And we could have done it, you know, we could have been like, do it for the story, do it for the book, and see what it's like. And there would be something nice about being memorialized in all the baseball databases, and to be part of the MLB record in some way if you did that in the majors. And we could have done it in some low stakes end of season game and a blowout or something. And we could have just thrown one pitch or stood in left field for a batter or something,

you know, probably unobtrusive. And we could have entered ourselves into the official record of professional baseball. And that was sort of tempting. But we didn't do it for, I think, all these reasons that I'm laying out there. because, A, I think the players would have resented it, you know, even if it was late in the season, after they had gotten to know us and everything, I think there was still sort of a divide where it was tough enough for us to justify our place in the dugout or in the clubhouse. If we had then crossed over onto the field, then I think that would have been seen as just intrusive and just kind of know your place nerd, you know, and like, this is our province. I guess it's kind of a stolen valor thing, you know, like. Yeah, exactly.

It's like, why are you putting on that metal, you know, you didn't earn it? Yes. And I think part of our calculus, the case that we made to the players was kind of what you were just saying, Meg, that we can actually help you. We can obtain all this technology and we can get video and we can show you replays and we can give you data and we can help. We can actually be part of this effort in some way. And I don't think that we could have justified that we were helping anyone or anything if we had inserted ourselves into a game. And so that just would have undercut our message and would have made them question all of our motives, really. And it would have been sort of a sideshow.

And even for the purposes of the book and sort of, hey, what if we were able to run a team? And we did all these things that we thought were smart and would help the team be better. We could not have made the case that playing personally would make the team better. So I think it would have been kind of hypocritical. And even if you did this in the majors, just to do it for the team. the story and to get your photo and to get your baseball reference page and your fancraft page and all the rest, I think it would be almost like a, it would hang around my neck, it would be like a, I might be more ashamed of it than I was proud of it.

You're taking somebody's spot. Yeah. Right. There's the roster consideration too. Right. Some young guy's been working his whole life and you're just hanging out to what make money. I shouldn't have said yeah so confidently that you guys would have hurt the team with your own I didn't mean anything by a ban. I wasn't trying to be a jerk. Yeah. Well, I think, and the reason why it's so seductive, the idea of, ooh, we could have our own player page is because it's meaningful to have your own player page. Because you have to actually earn it usually to get that.

And it signifies something about everything that you did to get to that point. And so if you just cut all the corners and skipped straight past that process, then it would not actually mean what it means. to everyone else, when we do our meet a major leaguer segment, it's predicated on the idea that just being a big leaguer, however briefly, and even if you don't play well, it's still an incredible accomplishment that is limited to a small group of people in the history of humanity. And so it would water down the honor if we gave it to ourselves, essentially. Now, if we could somehow separate all of these consequences from it and just simulate, the experience? Absolutely.

You know, if we're on the hollow deck, you know, if this is just like a VR simulation or something of being a big leaguer, then yeah, by all means, that would be I mean, it might also be sort of scary to actually stand in there and face major league pitching and everything. That might not actually be

as fun as it sounds. It might be humbling and terrifying. Yeah, but that I would do to get a sense of what that would feel like without all of the associated downsides. I have two thoughts about that. The first is that I am like highly embarrassable. And so the notion of doing this and in front of people on TV, absolutely not. Also, if you come up with holodeck technology, I don't think you have to worry about making big league money. You're going to,

you got a, you got a great sidebiz, you know, that's a good secondary hustle. You got a holodeck? Oh my God. Yeah, you have actually made the metaverse happen. But I mean, often, the holodeck just goes haywire, and that leads to its own problems. Not always, no. So, yes, that's low-stakes scenario where we could simulate it, get a taste, but without the bitter aftertaste, I'd absolutely be into that. But in real life, no, but I don't think anyone's suffering anyway. I guess the holodeck could also simulate all the, like, social advantage of being a major

leaguer and getting the adoration and so forth. Yeah, right, I guess. If you just want to inflate your own ego, you can. I have an AI girlfriend. Yeah, you can simulate being a sports superstar and all the adulation that goes along with that. Yeah, well, whatever floats your boat, I guess, as long as long as no one's being harmed, but sometimes people are harmed by the holodeck. It's a problem.

Okay. Here's a question from... It's a problem. You know, how you're always hearing about it being a problem, the holiday. What percentage of holodeck-centric Star Trek episodes has it been a problem? A significant percentage. Yeah, when it is the A plot, it tends to be something's gone wrong.

Or it could be a harmless mystery or something, but also sometimes things go on. Okay. Those guys took over the ship. They made the whole ship a holodeck. That was on voyage. Yeah, institutional hazard. All right. Fellow Patreon supporter, Philip says, a question I've been pondering.

Baseball people consistently give extra credit or special attention. to switch hitters when they are good, implicitly because they are good, despite doing such a hard thing. This doesn't make sense to me. Switch hitting is a choice a player makes to gain an advantage, i.e. the platoon advantage. It is one of the ways to try to be good,

like opting for a lift and pull approach or going for an all-fields approach, etc. I don't think we gave, for example, prime Joey Vado extra credit for choosing to try to succeed by being so picky with swing choices. if anything, people took away credit from Joey Votto for doing that. Why do we do it for switch hitters? Switch hitting is extremely hard to be good at, but no one is forced to do it.

This isn't some Mike Trout forced to depilitation scenario after all. Is this just about the advantages it affords lineup construction? Is this take way off? Literally everyone I discuss this with thinks so. And accordingly, I love that Philip still had the... It's like, I'm going to try one more time. these are a bunch of weirdos. They want to pit on the field.

I kind of appreciate the kind of reductionism of this. I mean, if I understand correctly, I mean, I guess at some point you could say, well, the value of anything a baseball player does is just war. And, you know, we shouldn't really give them extra credit for flexibility. You should just look at, you know, how much value they're bringing. But that seems kind of boring if you think of it that way. Like, I think it's good to give extra credit for being, you know, different.

Yeah, so Philip says that literally everyone he discusses this with thinks that his take his way off. And so accordingly, I will give one or both of you money to grant some legitimacy to this question. And I guess he has by supporting us on Patreon. And we have now aired it on the podcast. So I don't know whether that grants it legitimacy or not. Not unreasonable, I guess, to think that we would respond positively to a question that everyone else in Philip's life has condemned. That's probably pretty routine, I would guess. But I probably have to side with the mob here, Philip.

Well, maybe it's just a semantic thing because Philip is conceding that being a switch hitter is hard. Yeah. But then he's saying that that doesn't make it more impressive, I guess, when a switch hitter succeeds, essentially. I see what he's saying here, right? because it is very hard to switch hit at a major league level. And so I think it makes sense to be impressed by that. I am impressed by that because, you know, not that I could actually hit at a major league level with my dominant side either. But, you know, to think of doing it with the other side is even more inconceivable.

So physically, I think it is more challenging. And there's an even smaller group of people who could make that work. But it is true that if you can make it work, it makes your job easier in Major League Baseball, right? So I don't disagree with that. It makes keeping your job easier in Major League Baseball. It's still incredibly hard. Yes.

It is, yes, it's hard to maintain two swings and everything. Yeah. In fact, we spend more time these days, I think, encouraging guys to stop switching than we do, praising the ones who are good at it, because often there's just like and a noticeable and meaningful gap in how good they are from one side of the plate versus the other. And they might be able to do better by just committing to the one side and swinging from there more often,

even with the platoon disadvantage or what have you. But part of this maybe goes back to my instincts around the prior question, which is it's just so amazing to me that anyone can do any of this well, because I can't, which is part of why I would be so embarrassable if I were put in a big league uniform, I'd be like, this is going to be a really bad day at work every day for, and for so many days, that's the other part of it that would be terrible. It's just like you're there for so long. Just being the worst at your job every day.

That would be terrible. Maybe part of the issue is that I don't think about it as it being something that's like commendable, right? It's not virtuous. It's impressive, right? Maybe that's where I'm getting kind of tripped up in the question where it's like, well, we're applauding them for the skill. We're not applauding them because they're like, I mean, I guess we do, we applaud them to some degree because they're doing the difficult thing twice in a way that not everyone can do. But it's not a virtue question. Like, we wouldn't, we wouldn't be like, oh, that's not impressive. If a pitcher added a fourth pitch to their repertoire, we wouldn't be like, well, you're only doing that

because it's valuable. It's like, well, yeah. But. But that's true. But then it is valuable. You know what I mean? So it's just like, I'm sorry to leave you on an island. It can still that you have found no one that backs up your perspective. And I think you're right that this is maybe just a semantic difference, which in that case, perfect podcast to send it to again, you know? Like, You did well both times. But it is true that if you have the capacity to switch hit, every switch hitter has the option to stop switch hitting. Sure.

And some of them do. And maybe some of them who don't should. But they all could and they opt not to because they think that switch hitting gives them advantage. It makes it easier for them, right? I mean, it confers a platoon advantage upon them and they pursue that advantage because it's easier to hit. opposite-handed pitching. And so, yes, it is harder to maybe maintain multiple swings and have different vantage points and everything. But on balance, they think that they are better at baseball or that baseball is, is easier for them. I just don't know that they are thinking about it

in terms of it being easier, right? They're thinking about it in terms of being an advantage, I think. Right. But I don't know that they're like, oh, it's easier. I think they're still like, this is still really freaking hard. But I'm just, I'm able to do it. well from both sides. I don't know. Maybe we need to call Brent Rooker and be like, do people talk about switch hitters as if it's easier? Yeah. I'm just thinking of big leers we talk to every now and again, you know? I mean, this seems like just a variation on the Shohei Otani question, right? It's like, should we be impressed by him being a two-way player, you know, in addition to, you know, like, it's like Shoay Otani versus like Aaron Judge or something, right? Right. Yeah. Maybe we don't disagree with Philip. As you said, John, it's not like we're giving more credit to switch hitters in war or something. And there is just an inherent advantage for certain types of players in Major League Baseball. That's why lefties are so overrepresented. Right. That's why guys try to hit left-handed. Yeah, right, because you get the platoon advantage most of the time. Of course, if you're a lefty position player, there are certain positions that you can't play as easily or aren't allowed to.

to play, but you get the platoon advantage more often. And if you're a lefty pitcher, then you get an advantage. There's a familiarity effect or lack of familiarity effect. And you can get by with lesser stuff or speed a la Ranger Suarez, for instance, maybe. You know, that plays up a bit because he's a lefty and you just still see fewer lefties, even though you see many more lefties in the majors than you do in the general population. So maybe I kind of agree with Philip. But But, but, I kind of, like, I think. No, you don't. You're just being contrary.

I think, because he is conceding that switch hitting is extremely hard to be good at and that it's, it's impressive that they're good at that thing, which I think we would all agree about. But then if you are good at that thing, then it's, it doesn't actually make it. Because, like, some players are actually naturally ambidextrous or at least, you know, when they're. brains were plastic enough to sort of pick up being proficient with multiple hands, you know, whatever their parents coach them to do that or something. And so to them, maybe by that point, it is sort of second nature. And so they are continuing to do it because it gives them an advantage. And so like, for instance, when we talk about Cal Raleigh's 2025 season and we talk about all of the home run records he set. And he set the Mariners franchise home run record.

and he set the catcher home run record, multiple catcher home run records, you know, people who were actually playing catcher when they hit the home run or players who played catcher a majority of the time in the season when they were hitting the home runs. And he also set the home run record for switch hitters. He broke Mickey Mantle's record. And, you know, that was cited as an impressive thing, right? But I think it's far more impressive that he hit the most home runs as a catcher because, that makes it harder to hit home runs because, like, you don't play as much because wear and tear, at least for most catchers. Right. Right.

Right. And, you know, it just takes a toll on you physically and there's such a defensive load and you're expected to devote so much of your attention to preparing to work with your pitchers and all of that. That makes it harder to hit home runs. But his being a switch hitter doesn't make it harder for him to hit home runs, right? it makes it, if anything, easier for him to hit home runs, given that he has the talent to be a switch hitter, which he does, right? So it's, I do think it's sort of a Semitic thing. And, you know, it's like there aren't that many switch hitters these days. They're fewer than there have been at various periods.

And so maybe that suggests that it really is hard to not specialize to be a generalist to hit from both sides to swing both ways. as they say in this context and only this context. And so maybe that makes it more impressive, but also once you make it as a switch hitter, then I'm sympathetic to the argument that it's actually all upside. You know, it's just like it helps you, right? So it's not an impediment if you are able to conquer that initial obstacle of just most people not being ambidextrous.

So I sort of think we're saying the same thing, ultimately. I'm not sure that we're actually disagreeing or that the people who are disagreeing with Philip are actually disagreeing with him? I don't know. I forgot what the question was by now. I think I'm disagreeing with him. I also want to clarify just to head off potential email.

I know that Brent Roker isn't a switch hitter. Yes, right. Just if anyone is confused, I know he... He could comment on the perception of switch hitters, yeah. Right. I just want him, I would just ask him because, one, we talk to him every now and again,

and two, it's good to have topics to bring to him that aren't, hey, how do you feel about, haunted pools. Right. So it's just everyone, I know, right-handed here, right-handed. Very good. Very good at that. And I'm sure he'd be pretty impressed by switch hitting because he doesn't do it and probably

couldn't. So, yeah. I think it's both very impressive and also, in a sense, not impressive. It's just such a bananas thing to say. I can tell that you feel bonkers saying it based on how you're saying it. I know what Philip means. I know what he means, but I am inviting him to not split the hair. It's the opposite of like hitting with one hand tied behind your back.

It's like you get an extra hand. And I know that that's hard for most people, but for switch hitters. It would be like if you viewed it as getting an extra hand and you had grown the hand after not having it. Well, it's hard to make it to the majors as a switch hitter, right? But then once you have made the majors as a switch hitter, it's an advantage. Well, sure, it's an advantage. Oh, my gosh. Is that not?

I feel like that's all Philip is saying. I don't know. I don't know what if he's arguing. It is an advantage, but it's still impressive. Yeah. Even though it's an advantage. It could be both. Yeah.

Being a big league caliber player is an advantage in the major leagues. Of course. Yeah. Extra, extra. But it's still impressive. Yes, but it does tilt the playing field in your favor once you're in the majors, right? Because you... I mean, well, first of all, okay.

How much time? We don't need to spend any more time on this question. I guess the question is, just being good at something is that admirable inherently? I don't know. It's like, like, obviously you're good at it. So, I mean, do people have to admire you or not? I don't know. Again, I think that the, like, admirable is the wrong.

It's just not the word that I used to describe like a big leaguer being a good big leaguer. It's not admirable. It's impressive. Those are different. It's not like a virtue question. Let's move on to a different one. Yes. Yes.

I think Switchitters deserve special attention regardless of where we come down on this question. I think it's fair to focus on them. Maybe not as much as we have in this episode. But yeah, they're fairly rare and getting rarer. And it's a very difficult thing to do or to get to the big leagues and be able to do. So I think that they deserve all the attention they get and the mystique of the switch hitter. But I don't know. I guess I'm sort of sympathetic to the idea that like, all right, we'll move on.

Okay. So here's a question from Orion, also a Patreon supporter, who says, I'd be interested in seeing a recalculation of war and the various plus index stats without the PED guys. I don't think it needs to be authoritative, but it would be an interesting tool to evaluate for Hall of Fame ballot purposes. So Orion wants to essentially strip out all of the PED guys, quote unquote, and recalculate all the stats to essentially have kind of a clean players only baseless. line that we could use to compare other players to. Are we assuming we know who the PD guys are? Right.

Well, there's the rub. Yeah. Yeah. So I guess I agree that if we could do this in any sort of rigorous way, it would be interesting. It'd be a useful rubric to have. If anything, I'd be curious to see whether it even changes the stats one way or another, because I'm not convinced that it would. Of course, we know that there are certain players who are tied to PDs who have been great players,

and removing them from the sample would make everyone else look better. But there are also many fringy marginal players who have taken PDs. And so I think we'd probably be surprised by how much this would move the numbers or how little, I guess, because, yeah, it's like which PD guys? Is it only the ones who were good or also the ones who were unspectacular? And then you could never do it in practice because what about the presumably many players who were never implicated for their PD use? So it's a selective sample if you're only stripping out the ones we know did something. And then even if you're stripping out the ones we know did something, which seasons are you stripping from the sample?

Are you trying to say this is when he started juicing and before that he was clean and we can include him? and, you know, the lines there are rarely very clear. So I think if you removed only confirmed periods of PED use, it would not make much of a difference to the league-wide baselines, really. And I'm unconvinced that the juice, so to speak, would be worth the squeeze in terms of how much it would affect other players' statistical cases. I agree. Yeah, no, I would just say that I want to, you don't want to bias the stats by like,

taking out good seasons, right? Like if you say, you know, O'Berry Bond was obviously juicy when he hit 70 home runs, but, you know, not when he had less, you know, impressive performance, you know, than you're, you know, then you're, you know, then you're biasing the sample.

Yeah. And the confirmed PD players, if you take the, the upper estimates of people who have said, you know, 50% of players were, were on something or whatever, well, we know a very small portion of those. Even if you just took every name in the Mitchell report,

or that reportedly failed the tests that were supposed to be anonymous or whatever else. It would be such a small number of players that in the grand scheme of things, I don't think it would budge the baselines all that much, really. But, you know, I'm sure it would, if you could do it somehow, if you had perfect all-knowing information about who did what and when, and you could somehow remove that, I'd be interested, of course, in seeing just like whether that even makes the quote-unquote clean players more impressive, whether the PEDs work as well as people generally assume that they did.

You might find that the effects were overrated in most cases, if not in individual cases. So, yeah, that's just, that's a whole, that's a problem. Like, that's a bigger problem than the holodeck to try to untangle who was clean and who juiced and what sort of of effects that it had. So that's a, that's a tough one. Yeah, agreed. Well, since, since we're talking about Star Trek, shall we talk about the, the goat baseball player in Star Trek lore, the great Buck Bukai? This is a question from Matt. Buck Bukai may have been invoked on this podcast previously, I think, but Matt says, my partner and I are re-watching Star Trek Deep Space Nine, and last night we watched if wishes were horses, which introduces Buck Bukai, Star 3rd

basement for the 2042 London Kings, and in Captain Sisko's words, the greatest that ever played. But in the episode, they also say that he hit 20 home runs from the right side, his dominant and power side. Uh-oh, this is going to lead to another switch hitter debate. In his first three seasons, and then only 10 home runs or fewer per season after that, supposedly because his manager, Old Crow, moved him to second in the lineup, these stats are fine in all but nothing special. So my question is this, how good would Buck Bukai have to be at everything but power hitting to actually be the greatest of all time? And Matt lays out the following tidbits

that we have about his career. His rookie season was 2015 when he was 17 years old. His final season was 2042 when he was 44. He claims he had five good years left in him, but the planetary baseball league folded after the 42 season. Maybe all players think they have a little left in the tank, but Captain Cisco seems to believe this is the reason why Bokai was actually the greatest, suggesting that he didn't actually surpass Ruth, Bonds, Mays, and War, but maybe was on pace to. Of course, bonds, speaking of PD players, he may have had more good years than him, too, but he was not extended an invitation to play for additional years.

his power was far better from the right side. He hit 20 home runs as a righty, his first three seasons. He hit 10 home runs or fewer total every subsequent season. He broke Joe DiMaggio's hit streak record in 2026. He was not a two-way player. He transitioned from shortstop to third base in 2032. In if wishes were horses, he appears as his 2042 self and has a Babe Ruth build. I guess a older Babe Ruth build.

he's kind of tubby, Matt says. So my question is this, can we cobble together a player profile in a lab that is all of the things above and has a case for the goat? He did play 27 seasons, so that's a good start. Well, I mean, off the top, a player who always got on base would be incredibly valuable, right? Right. Yes. So if he broke DiMaggio's hit streak record, I think probably safe to assume that he was a high average hitter, or it would be even more improbable that he would do that.

So high average hitter, high on base guy, maybe he took tons of walks. And if he played shortstop for the majority of his career, now, you know, I guess maybe the fact that he transitioned from short to third in 2032 when he would have been, well, let's see, I guess if he was 44 in 2042, then he would have been 34 when he moved off short, which, you know, that's not abnormal at all. But if he were like a generational shortstop wizard, like the wizard, Ozzie Smith or something, then, you know, or Hannes Wagner or whatever, then maybe he could have just stuck it short into his late 30s or 40s or so. Maybe that tells you something about his proficiency at short. But even if he was, you know, a pretty good shortstop and he was an extremely high average, high on base hitter and, you know, maybe he was a good base runner, base dealer, et cetera. I think, yeah, he could be the goat, right? You could. I mean, it's tough, right?

Because, you know, it's tough to accrue the war totals that Mays or Bonds or Ruth or Aaron or these guys did. If you don't hit for power, that's hard. But most of those guys also weren't defensively elite. At least a lot of those guys weren't. Or they didn't play premium defensive positions. Maybe Mays is an exception. though the stats kind of differ on his center field play beyond a certain point. So, yeah, like, you could be a shortstop and play for an extremely long time

and theoretically rack up the kind of value that, you know, a corner outfielder did, despite him hitting for far more power than you. I'm actually more intrigued about the Planetary Baseball League. If you think about, like, different forces of gravity, different atmospheric pressure. Yeah. Yeah, that was covered, I guess, in some of our future blasts on past episodes. But, yeah, the Planetary Baseball League has a fairly concise entry, actually, on Memory Alpha, the Star Trek Wiki. All it says is that the Planetary Baseball League was a Baseball League and division of Major League Baseball, which had teams across Earth in the early 21st century.

They were officially related to Planetary Baseball League Inc. a notable player was Buck Bukai who stayed with the league for over 20 years. That's about all it says. And then it just lists some of the teams including the Gotham City

bats, the London Kings, the Crenshaw Monarchs. There was a team in Sebu in Japan as there is now and a team in tennis. So that's all we know about the Palantaire

Baseball League, I guess, from the Star Trek lore. But feel free to let your imagination run wild. I will. Yeah. I mean, you know, we know that the World War III arrived and interfered with baseball, I guess. So, you know, that's certainly an impediment to the sports continuing to survive and thrive. And of course, World War III, I'm sorry to break it to everyone, but arrived in 2026, I believe, in the Star Trek timeline and persisted for decades. So that's something to look forward. forward to, I guess. Oh, good.

Yeah. Not entirely unrealistic, I suppose, but neither is Buck Bukai. I think, yeah, I'll back up Ben Sisko here. I think that Buck Buckeye could have been the goat. Now, it is entirely possible that Ben Sisko was just sort of like, you know, old school fans despite living in the future and valued. I mean, we know he's kind of like an old school thinker. You know, he has a baseball, just the fact that he still cares about baseball and value.

use it and knows, you know, is sort of a scholar of the sport, which is kind of common to Star Trek captains, but as has been discussed on this podcast, I think in the past, it sort of makes sense that Star Trek captains would be geeks who are like into the past and stuff, you know, probably that profession perhaps selects for that sort of knowledge and interest. So it is possible that Ben Sisko does not have a great handle on the value of baseball players. And that that, you know, maybe centuries on some of the sabermetric lore has been lost, perhaps. But if Buck Bukai was perceived as a great in his day, I guess that's maybe a little unclear. So it's not totally settled, I suppose, whether this is a contrarian take from Bensisco

or whether this is kind of the consensus. And so it's possible that, you know, he just has a personal affection for Bukbkeye and the type of player he was that isn't really reflective of his actually deserving the title of goat. Now I'm thinking of like all of the terabytes of data they would have like, you know, decades from now, there'd be so much information about players. Is there fan graphs in Star Trek? Yeah, well, there's, you know, no planetary baseball league, I guess, at that stage. But I'm sure that there was a Star Trek equivalent of fan graphs prior to the demise of the

sports. But yeah, I guess what we're saying is that that player profile does not contradict Benjamin Sisko's interpretation of Buckbukai's value. You absolutely could come up with a player who satisfies all of those criteria and was the greatest of all time. It would be an unusual player profile, but maybe that would make it all the more interesting and impressive and likely to be loved and lauded by Ben Sisko centuries later. Okay. Well, there's plenty of baseball content in Star Trek, of course, and it's a baseball show and a baseball franchise. And if you want to unite baseball and the holodeck aforementioned on this episode, then there is, of course, an episode for you, take me out to the holodeck. And in fact, Michael Bowman and I did, or the hollow suite, sorry. But yeah, that was a deep space night. episode in the seventh season that Michael Bowman and I did an episode of The Ringer MLB show about for Space Week at the Ringer, I think. And we had a guest in an interview and we talked about

the making of that episode. And I assume that's still available somewhere. If I can find it, I will link to it on the show page. Okay. Well, this probably went in a whole lot of directions you didn't anticipate, John. It was fun. I'm glad. And I guess you anticipate the unanticipatable when you appear on this podcast, probably. Anything you would care to plug before we let you go? I'm going to plug the scientific method. I think it needs more respect. You know, it's been working well for 400 years or so. So, yeah. I endorse it. I do too. Co-sign scientific method. Yeah. A lot of upsides to the scientific method. We should use that. We should continue to trust that, I think. Good idea. I was interested. The Patreon people who appear on the

Rarely is the plug or promotion that they do self-serving, you know? Yeah. Very rarely is it like check out this project at mine, which is fine if that's what you. Yeah, totally fine. Yeah, you're welcome to. But so often it is something selfless or people just promote this podcast or an abstract concept like the scientific method. So I appreciate that. Well, John, thank you for listening for not quite 15 years, but, you know, 13.

and counting, and hopefully we'll all get to 15 together. Appreciate your support and your time today. Sounds good. Well, one guy who will not be going to the AL East, Kyle Daniel Tucker, who after we recorded this episode signed with, you'll never guess, the Los Angeles Dodgers. Sort of saw that one coming.

Kind of called it last week. It's a four-year, $240 million contract. Those are the top line numbers at least with opt-outs. A possibly decisive blow in the free agent contracts over under draft. But that's probably not the number one takeaway for most people who are listening to this. We will, of course, dive deep into all of the implications next time. Happy 29th birthday to you, Kyle Tucker. He'll turn 29 on Saturday. A much wealthier man than he was when he turned 28. All right, an important pedantic correction from Patreon supporter Bohan, who says, I have a follow-up

on the narwhal follow-up. It's a pedantic note, but I figure you'd be happy to be pedantic about animals as well. Ben mentioned the narwhal's tusk coming from its nose, but but it's actually a modified canine tooth, and it emerges from male and in rare instances, female, Narwhal's upper lip. So I suppose it is, in fact, a literal stiff upper lip. Thank you for that important clarification. And thanks for your Patreon support, which any listener is welcome and encouraged to provide

by going to patreon.com slash effectively wild and signing up to pledge some monthly or yearly amount to help keep the podcast going, help us stay ad-free, and get yourself access to some perks. As have the following five listeners, Jonathan Barra, Dan Valenzola, Bradley Ruffin, Stacey E, and Scott Sorbella, thanks to all of you. Patreon perks include, well, potential podcast appearances, as you just heard. And as you also just heard, shoutouts at the end of episodes, as well as monthly bonus episodes,

access to the Effectively Wild Discord group for patrons only, prioritized email answers, play off live streams, personalized messages, discounts on merch and ad-free fancrafts memberships, and so much more. Check out all the offerings at patreon.com slash Effectively Wild. If you are a Patreon supporter, you can message us to the Patreon site. If not, 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 Effectively Wild on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, music, and other podcast platforms.

You can join our Facebook group at Facebook.com slash. You can find the Effectively Wild subreddit at our slash Effectively Wild. And you can check the show notes in the podcast posts at Fangraphs or the episode description in your podcast app for links to the stories and stats we cited today. Thanks to Shane McKean for his editing and production assistance. We will be back with one more episode before the end of the week, which is fast approaching, and therefore we will talk to you soon. Actively wild.