Effectively Wild: A FanGraphs Baseball Podcast - Effectively Wild Episode 2429: Retire Rich

Episode Date: January 21, 2026

Ben Lindbergh and Meg Rowley banter about Ha-Seong Kim and the perils of slipping on ice, the contrasting retirement comments of Mookie Betts and Rich Hill, more on the Kyle Tucker and Bo Bichette signings, Goodhart’s law and baseball stats, the late Wilbur Wood, and the latest trends in Hall of Fame voting. Audio intro: Benny and a Million Shetland Ponies, “Effectively Wild Theme (Pedantic)” Audio outro: Sam Chess, “Effectively Wild Theme” Link to Kim story Link to MLBTR on Kim Link to Mateo signing Link to team SS projection Link to Cena/Mookie episode Link to MLB.com on Mookie Link to HUAL on Cena’s retirement Link to Mookie’s other stream Link to MLBTR on Hill Link to “Retire” meme Link to Hill on EW Link to team LF projection Link to team CF projection Link to Dombrowski comment Link to MLBTR on Jays offer Link to Weaver’s Dodgers stat Link to Clemens post Link to barrels definition Link to Andrews post Link to Goodhart’s law wiki Link to Wood obit Link to Wood’s IP lead Link to Sardell EW appearance Link to Sardell’s penultimate projections Link to Sardell’s final projections Link to Jay’s results preview Link to Jay on EW Link to BBWAA announcement Link to Jay on the results Link to Jay’s Jones profile Link to Jones battery report Link to Jay’s Beltrán profile Link to Felix leap stat Link to Pettitte PEDs story Link to Vizquel persuasion post Link to Sam’s ballot Link to Pollis on the results Link to MLBTR on Robert  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

Well, it's moments like these that make you ask, how can you not be pedantic about baseball? If baseball were different, how different would it be? On the case with light ripping, all analytically, cross-check and compile, find a new understanding. Not effectively while there, can you not be pedantic? Yes, when it comes to baseball, how can you not be pedantic? Hello and welcome to episode 2429 of Effectively Wild, a Baseball podcast from Fangraphs presented by our Patreon supporters.

I am Ben Lindbergh of the Ringer, joined by Meg Rally of FanGraphs. Hello, Meg. Hello. I was taking my daughter to school yesterday morning, and it was quite icy on the sidewalks. And so we were stepping carefully, and my daughter's very conscientious when it's slippery on the sidewalk. She will constantly be reminding me to watch my step. And as we were almost at her school, another lady who was just on the corner behind us just completely slipped as if she had stepped on a banana peel or something. But it was kind of almost a cartoonish sort of just like legs up in the air sort of situation.

Nice. And yeah, she seemed to be fine. And she dusted herself, brushed herself off and proceeded on her way. but my daughter was sort of transfixed by seeing someone fall so spectacularly. Just not faceplant. I guess it was more of a butt plant than a face plant. But yeah, it was just legs out from under her. Apparently that's what happened to Hassan Kim.

Because I don't know exactly what it looked like or if it went like that. But he slipped on the ice in Korea reportedly and now is having to have surgery and will be out for four to five months. which means that he will miss, I don't know, at least a month or two of the season. Yeah. Because he has to have hand surgery, a torn tendon in his right middle finger. So be careful out there, people. Yeah. Face down, ass up.

That's the way we like to screw up our starting a shortstop. It's really, you know, what a humbling thing it must be. I don't want to make a light of this. First of all, ouch. Yeah. Second of all, they're so delicate. Your hands are so vulnerable. We've talked about all the little bird bones.

We didn't even spend time on the tendons. You know, you got all these funny little, and there's just not a lot to them, your hands, you know? It's like everything, everything feels like it's on the surface, which isn't quite right, but also is. I feel bad for Haussung. I feel bad for the Braves because, you know, they have, Really since Dansby Swanson left town punted on shortstop, it has been, for all the strength on that roster, for all of their sort of careful work to lock in their dudes long term, they're like running out there with various R.C.s and Allens, you know, it's just like, and that isn't to say that those players don't have something to recommend them, but they are better cast in complimentary roles than as everyday starters.

And so it's just like, okay, you're finally, you're finally doing something here. And as we discussed at the time of the signing, that doing came with its own risk. But it's like it was understandable risk. It was like a risk where you kind of had a sense of where the, the air bars lie. And you do all of that. And then a guy just slips on the ice and he opens your whole plan. And you're, you know, it's all so fleeting. We're very vulnerable, especially in our hands.

hands, but also in terms of roster construction. Yeah, just like that. Best laid plans and all the rest. So that is... I love how you were like, I'm going to go with the best laid plans of mice and men, Af Deglae. And Meg's like, face down, ass up. That's the way we... Yeah, really real range of references here. So many reasons to beware of ice these days. Be careful out there, everyone. So Maricio Dabon, I guess, will be the benefit. fissary of this playing time in the short term, which is... Well, in Jorge Mateo. They signed Jorge Mateo.

You know, don't sleep on Jorge Mateo. I would never. Who I think will get time there. I guess so. Yeah, because we talked about Dubon earlier this offseason and how he gave the Braves all sorts of options because he could play a bunch of positions and they could just get this guy if it worked out and get that guy if it worked out. And Dubon could just back them.

up, be their insurance policy at a number of positions. But they do seemingly prefer to have him as the Swiss Army knife utility type. And that probably is the most natural role, best fit for him. So, yeah, Jorge Mateo, you're back to just kind of combing the dregs of the free agent markets. Poor Atlanta fans, just wanting to see a good productive shortstop. But, you know, maybe Kim will be good once he returns. You just have to wait a little longer. Yeah, maybe it'll be fine. And I guess the good news is, like, Dubon was going to be on your roster, no matter what. And Jorge Mateo, it's pretty inexpensive as these things go. So, you know, it's like a good flyer.

But I don't know. I think they're going to have to just, like, go out and draft one. That might be their only option. It's like go out and just draft another really good one. You can't see, the thing I worry about with Atlanta, I'm going to expound on this for a minute because we don't really have very much to talk about. after all that activity last week, very little has happened, you know? There's been so little in the day since, which I have to say, hey, thanks MLB teams. I was pretty tired.

But the thing about Jorge Mateo is, and the shortstop position in Atlanta more generally is you're sort of in very dangerous curse territory, I think. You know, it's like I have made the joke for many years. And then I think the demons were exercised eventually. But, you know, you had this like a phenomenon of the Cleveland outfield being god-awful for years on end. And I have traced that back to their refusal back in the day to give Michael Brantley a qualifying offer, which felt to me like a bit of tight-fistedness that even they should be ashamed of. And the baseball gods clearly agreed. and they put a hex on various parts of the outfield.

And we've seen some of that hex removed, although, you know, across the board, it's not like they got All-Stars all the way across there, but they do have Stephen Kwan. And so you're in dangerous territory, Atlanta, because you've shown an indifference to the production at that spot. And now you have an attempt to improve, but also the first sign of a curse setting in.

And you're responding with Mateo. So I don't know. you might have to take drastic action soon because you can't you can't let the you know you can't let the you know you can't let the ghosts settle in then they don't want to leave ever you know that's how ghosts and curses work ghosts and curses are discrete paranormal phenomena but sometimes related paranormal phenomena is it a curse of paranormal phenomena anyway it's the off season here we are in january 20th they're projected to be the 28th best team at shortstop right now Yeah.

So, yeah, that's a bummer for them and for him. Better than the rays in the tigers, I guess. So that's something, at least according to the depth charts. Yeah, but it has been a slow news week and period, which is fine because last week ended with such a flurry of signings and trades and everything else that we could barely keep up. So we needed a little bit of a breather. But, yeah, it was slow enough that it was widely reported that Mookie Betts had expressed his. his intention to retire several years for like a setting some sort of record for for preemptive retirement announcement, I think.

So he was on John, this title just, What Drives You with John Sina, which is evidently a Roku miniseries. Okay. John Sina, he's everywhere these days. And Muky Betts was on there. And he confirmed that he will retire following his. the 2032 season when he'll be 40 and his contract will be up. Okay.

So I have a couple of things. The first of which is to say, I mean, I'd rather he be engaged in film activity with John Cena than some of his other streaming pals of late. Cina seems safer. Was he asked if he was going to retire or did he just volunteer that information out of the clear blue nowhere? I know. I will level with you and admit that I did not watch what drives you with John.

John Sina featuring Mookie Betts, but it came up somehow. You know, John Sina recently retired from wrestling. Oh, sure, I knew that. Maybe that's how it came. Sure. So maybe that's how it came up. And Mookie said, I'll be 40. My little girl will be 14.

My son will be 10. My parents were always there, and I want to do that same thing for my kids. That's nice. Yeah, sure. But that's a long ways away. In 2032, you know, that's several years. And I mean, first of all, I guess that might be sort of a safe assumption that he would retire at that point. Right. This is just, right. You're going to be 40. Most guys are done by then, you know?

Yes. Like what he should say is like, hopefully I'll still be playing and productive then, which, you know, I think he has a good shot at doing. I mean, who knows, like by then he could be catching or something. Like you move to shortstop at 31, 32. Like maybe he'll just continue his tour of the. defensive spectrum, just make it more and more challenging for himself. But, you know, if we assume that the offensive downturn this past season was related to his health and being unable to, like, keep anything down and losing lots of weight and strength and all that stuff, and maybe projecting some sort of rebound here, then, okay. But gosh, that's a long ways away. And it's like there's so much uncertainty about that, for one thing, you know, we're looking at seven seasons, right? That's going to take him through his age 39 season.

So, A. Will we even be a republic by then? You know? I was with a world exist? You know, was anyone like burning with curiosity to know what Muky's plans for 233 were at this stage? You know, most guys, as you said, are done by then. And the few who might still be able to play, it's not as if it's a binding resolution.

that he declares in early 2026. Yeah, I'm calling it quits after seven more seasons. You know, like if he beats the odds and he's great by then, who knows, he might decide to stick around. And I don't think anyone will do a gotcha. And say, hey, Mookie, remember when you were on what drives you with John Sina in 26? And you committed to retiring and how dare you? just your kids have been counting on you being around as you promised and now you're reneging on that. I don't think anyone will remember that or care particularly. And what drives you? I mean, if he's so driven that he wants to stay even longer, maybe Sina would appreciate that.

Who knows? What drives you? So here's a question I have. So I realized it might be unrealistic to expect you to know the ins and outs of the production schedule of what drives you with John Sina. But do you know, like, when did he, because here's how I've came across this piece of information. I think I maybe got a push alert from MLB.com where I was, where I was like, wait a minute, you know how you sometimes you read something really fast and then you don't, you kind of miss important particulars? Yeah. I was like, if I'm getting a push alert with mooky bets on retirement, I better learn that he's retiring tomorrow, right?

He's like, actually, I think it's unfair that we have Kyle Tucker. And so I'm going to do what I think is best for the competitive balance of the sport. The best interest of baseball. I'm walking away to let everyone compete. That's not what it said at all. And I don't know. I mean, Ben, I know you were busy watching playoff football because you're a football guy now. But I was like, a part of me wanted to be like, so hey, Mookie, I'm watching a playoff football right now.

Okay? I got other things going on. I can't remember if at that juncture I was well. watching a very dispiriting performance by the Houston Texans or if we were into the night game yet. But I just was like, this is also this is a roundabout way to arrive at this conclusion. But it did make me think, I was like, you know what, Rob, I think it's fine for baseball to be less present during parts of the off season. I'm busy, right? I'm, I'm worrying about whether the Seahawks have to contend with the Rams. Okay. That's my project right now. My project is

wondering if Caleb Williams is trying to kill everyone in the Chicago land area on purpose, or if it's just an unfortunate byproduct of him not being able to produce offense before the fourth quarter. That's what I'm focused on right now. Laser focus. I don't need Mookie to retire after 2032. And so I was just like, surely they weren't recording it on Sunday? Because it came on Sunday, right?

We got that push notification? Yeah. Well, I didn't. Because I would, I am very aggressive about disabling any push notifications. But if I got that one, I would, I would resent it. You don't have to worry about assigning Kyle Tucker signings to people. Yes. Who did you assign to cover the news that Mookie will be retiring in seven years? I thought about making someone start a letter writing campaign of mind your damn business.

Yeah, you definitely don't need a push notification for that. No. But no, based on what I'm seeing, I think that the Sina show does binge drops. It's like four episodes. a season or something. And I think the second season, yeah, I don't think this was a calculated Mookie and Rob Minford in Cahoots to try to steal the spotlight from football. I think it was January 16th.

I guess that was Friday. I guess the four episodes of the second season dropped and the mooky one was one of them. By the way, I guess the show is it's sort of like a comedians in cars getting coffee sort of thing where Sina like the driving is literal. There is driving that happens like he meets up with the guests. and they drive their car wherever and talk while they're doing it. Can I offer, I'm sorry, can I offer a very, it's January 20th and nothing happened over the weekend take? And for our listeners who are not yet Patreon supporters, well, I don't know if this will sway you one way or the other, it might be to your detriment.

But one feature of our Patreon pods is that we often will share low stakes rants. And I think people have a good time with it, if only to learn about Ben's absolutely unhinged eating habits. And so I would like to offer, if you will, allow me, Ben, a brief low-six ramp. What's with all of the guys in cars while having conversation stuff? This has to stop. It is a sign of societal decay. And part of this is the fault of Jerry Seinfeld, surely. And also, I feel like the other late-night guys have done stuff where they're in cars

and then they have to get out of the car and sometimes there's a flash mob. and then you're like, why is James Corbin such a part of my life? But anyway, some of this is that are fault. Some of this is the fault of the foul territory, guys. And I don't mean to put other media members on blast, but why is everyone you talk to in their car? What is going on? I do not understand.

I appreciate that sometimes you are at home if you're a player during the off season and your children are also there. And maybe that's the only quiet place in your house. But sometimes these guys are literally driving. driving, which seems like a safety hazard, because you're surely not paying attention to the road in the way that you ought to. And sometimes they're just parked in their car somewhere. Somewhere, Ben. Where are they? What is this really the only time that you could get them on foul territory? I think probably not. I think that you, is this bad staff work? Did the player

mislead you about their availability and go, oh, crap, I'm on pickup duty today. And so I'm in the line for my kid to get out of school. What is going on? There was a time when they talked to Sunny Gray, and he was not only in his car, he was like, you won't relate to this because you don't drive, but like sometimes you'll be waiting in your car and you're like, oh, I'm kind of crampy and you like lift your leg up. He was wearing shorts, and I just saw so much of Sunny Gray's thigh. And then I was worried I was going to see other parts of Sunny Gray because I don't know what he's

wearing under the shorts. Yeah. Why are they always in their cars? pull over and go into a... Parts of sunny where the sun don't shine. Yes, and I don't need to see that. That's none of my business. So anyway, enough with guys in their cars.

And the thing I've rented about on the Patreon pods is when you have a show, not a nonfiction show, a scripted show where people are talking, and the driver is never watching the road because when you're conversing, you're having some dialogue. They're always looking at each other,

making eye contact and makes me feel unsafe just vicariously. Yeah. Setting a bad example. Anyway, I don't remember what day the push notification came in. Here I am besmirching the Texans. Well, they kind of besmirch themselves. It could have happened on Saturday, but regardless, I feel like I was watching football and I was preoccupied.

And I was like, why am I getting this now? He's just going to keep playing per the terms of his contract. And then probably he'll retire at that point or he'll make another decision then based on how he feels as a 39 or 40 year old. And it's the expectation that I'm going to remember that he said he was going to play so that I can be like, oh, well, just like Mookie said, a man of his word, no. Yeah. We're going to be in the water wars by then. I'm not going to give a shit. Sorry for the swear about Mookie bets and whether or not he's.

perhaps it was more casual in conversation and it was just aggregated as if it was some bold declaration or something. Totally. Like the MLB.com story, the headline is Mookie confirms. Right. Right. So, it's the subject of some speculation. Right. No one was talking about that.

Oh, my God. And to be clear, you know, here I am joking. I think it's always fine to joke at John Cena's expense because he, you know, he, he, he, he, He puts him, he seems gay. That's fine. I don't think this is Moogie Betts's fault. I think this is, there's nothing to talk about. But guys, that's when you talk about whether there should be a pit on the field.

It's not when you confirm that a guy is going to keep showing up to work. In more relevant and maybe imminent retirement news, Rich Hill appeared on a podcast. So he's still out there, you know, a number of attractive Southpaws still available from Ravaldez. Rich Hill. And Rich Hill was on the same podcast that Joe Kelly used to announce his retirement, though he avoided saying that he had retired. But this was the baseball isn't boring podcast that came out this week. And Rich Hill also did not quite use those words. He didn't say I'm officially retired or anything, but he did say, I don't have any plans on playing next year. And presumably he means this year by that. And he then said,

I'm looking for open possibilities to stay in the game of baseball and be a contributory factor. As, again, I enjoy the work aspect of whatever it might be that's next. I think that's one thing that might be why athletes get hired in other positions outside of sports is that they're highly driven people that want to succeed. Driven. John Sina. Why have you not had Rich Hill on what drives you with John Sina or whatever? Anyway, Rich Hill, I guess, is looking forward to a non-playing future. At least it sounds like he's staying in the sport and he's looking to be a contributor. Perhaps he could come on effectively wild again if that makes him happy.

But yeah, it seems like we can probably stick a fork in the pitching career of Rich Hill, which is, of course, sad news for everyone who, you know, hears that and thinks, well, there is now no big league older than me anymore who is still active. So now I guess your best hope is that someone signs Justin Verlander a year. youthful 42, 43 come next month. So he's still out there for everyone. 43. Okay. So a few things here. One, we talked at some length about Kyle Tucker and Bobauchette last week. And then immediately after we finished recording, I thought of a few other things

that I meant to say or wish I had said or other things came to light after that. So just a smattering of observations here. One is that I think we wondered. what the Blue Jays had offered Kyle Tucker. Yeah, we did. Yeah, it was subsequently reported, I think, by John Hayman, that the Blue Jays offered $350 million over 10 years.

So the Mets offer was seemingly a lot like the Dodgers offer, also short-term, high A-V, but the Blue Jays, we did say that it seemed like they had been willing to go longer, that that was the structure

that they were pursuing. And now we know the numbers, at least per Hayman. So 10 years, 350, that's not so far off from the kind of numbers that were bandied about before the offseason started. So, you know, still would have hit the under for me on 400, but not by nearly as much. So all the we were talking about last time about, well, what does this portend? Is this the new normal? These short-term high AV deals, maybe, but at least one of the more older school deals that was

out there for him. And, you know, if it's, it's. player-driven, if players are pursuing this type of deal that Bichet and Tucker sign, that's one thing. If teams are suddenly saying, we're not going to offer long-term deals anymore and, you know, like it or lump it, basically, then that would be another thing. But it does seem as if one team, at least, was out there. Yeah. And Bichet had longer-term deals, too. So the fact that they chose the type that they did, that's still significant.

But it's not that longer-term deals weren't out there for them if they had. had wanted to go that way. I think that especially when you have a certain amount of confidence that re-entering the market can be lucrative for you, you are able to prioritize fit. And, you know, I think that's true probably for guys like Tucker who are viewed as the top available free agents on any given market. But I do think it's a good reminder that like there's a lot that goes into it. and a good bit of that lot is just the money. But, you know, like, you're committing to living and playing in a place for maybe, you know, another eight years, 10 years. Like, that's not an insignificant thing in terms of how you feel about the potential fit, whether it's like the place or the people or what have you.

So, you know, I think that there's stuff that goes into it that isn't really about the money part at all. The money matters a lot, but it's not the only thing. And when you're into that range, I think you have the ability to be choosy about other stuff in a way that, you know, if you're trying to just get a job, you can't necessarily. And another thing which we may have mentioned, I forget, is that it may behoove those players to return to the market without the qualifying offer attached to just because you can, at least under the current system, you know, I don't know if they could get screwed. by the new CBA or something, but as it is, if you have the qualifying offer and you reject it once, then the next time you're a free agent, then it does not get attached to you and the team that potentially signs you, does not have to forfeit draft picks, which means that, you know, I always wonder how big impediment that is with contracts of that size or players of that

caliber. Yeah, historically, it's sort of seemed like the more marginal free agents or, you know, you're not going to be totally marginal because you wouldn't even get a qualifying offer in the first place. But the guys who are like borderline should they get a qualifying offer or not, and then they do, and then they reject it. Then it becomes a bigger issue because it's like, you know, the total percentage, I guess, of the value that you are forfeiting to sign that person. It's, you know, more draft pick centric. Whereas with Tucker or Bichette, if you're just paying them, you know, 40-something or 50-something or whatever, million dollars a year, then. The value of those draft picks, it's not exactly a rounding error. It's something, but it's not quite as high a percentage of your overall outlay there.

But it's another thing that you can kind of throw on the pile of what it would take to cost those guys. And if they hit the market again in a year or two or three, then they wouldn't have to worry about that. Yeah. I mean, I think like Trent Grisham, it made so much sense that he accepted the qualifying offer, right? He was a marginal case. You know, he's a good player, but he's not a great player. Do you really want to relinquish draft pick compensation for him? No, no.

So, like, except, you know, get $22 million for one year. Sounds good. And then reenter the market in a year and see if you can get sort of a longer term something. And in the meantime, like, you have time to negotiate a potential extension with the club that you're signing with. You know, there's all sorts of stuff there. So that makes some amount of sense to me. I don't think it matters. Not that it doesn't matter at all, but it matters much less for guys at the high end of the

market. And it's particularly less important if you're like the second big guy they're signing, right? Because you're the way that you continue to have to relinquish draft picks, but they are less high up in the draft as you go. And so the sort of value tradeoff is going to be different for Kyle Tucker than it necessarily was for Dylan Sees is going to be less than it was for the guy, you know, before him. So that part of it matters too. And I was thinking it seems like these days the Dodgers always get their guy when they really go hard after someone that they always land them and then there's a lot of consternation about that and also defenses of the Dodgers that, hey, it's not just the money, it's the other appealing parts of the package and all that. I was reminiscing about sometimes when the Dodgers

missed out on a free agent target because that happens sometimes. Now, sometimes they have just let someone walk, for instance, Corey Seeger or Trey Turner, you know, for various reasons. They didn't go all out in efforts to retain those guys. But some players, they really seemingly did have their hearts set on and passed them up. Bryce Harper was a famous one. Remember, you know, when he signed with the Phillies, 2019 or whatever that was. The Dodgers at that time were offering him a shorter term high AV deal. And he ended up going with the Phillies, a 13-year offer or whatever it was.

So that was a case of a player being presented with the same sort of choice that Tucker faced here and going in the other direction and taking the long-term security. If he had to do it over again, I don't know whether he would have. Obviously, some things have gone south for Harper since then, but also his deal doesn't look quite as huge as it did at the time. I mean, he was even interested in trying to wheedle an extension out of the Phillies or something. and, you know, it's like he didn't announce seven years in advance that he was going to retire, but he did say that he wanted to retire as a Philly and therefore needed an extension, which hasn't come. But, yeah, that was kind of an example of just foregoing the option of a Tucker or Bichette-esque contract. And obviously, the Dodgers could have benefited from having Harper.

Max Scherzer was another one after the Dodgers traded for Scherzer. They also tried to keep him. And that was more of a short-term high-A-V arrangement. And he just chose the Mets over the Dodgers. And they gave him a lot of money over not a long-term either. But he just went with the Mets. And then another one, well, Juan Soto just last year, I don't know that the Dodgers, whether it was like full court press for Soto,

but they reportedly offered him $600 million, which is a lot of money, but also a lot less. than the Mets and the Yankees offered him. So they probably knew that they weren't going to get him for that amount, I guess. And I don't know. I mean, it sounds ridiculous to say that's like not a serious offer or something for someone's $600 million. But and maybe it was a shorter term than the 15-year contract he ended up getting. But that sort of, I guess, split the difference between the long-term lower A-AV and the short-term higher A-A-A-V.

so does AV also quite high, even though it's a very long-term deal. But yeah, there are times when the Dodgers do go after someone and they come up empty. So it's not automatic that if the Dodge—now, they do sign more guys. Obviously, they are more successful than other teams or successful more often. And Levi Weaver had a stat at the athletic that there have been 29, nine-figure contracts signed since November 2023, and that's counting free agent signings and extensions. And so that sounds like, well, it's about one per team on average, but 16 teams have not signed anyone to those contracts, and the Dodgers have signed six guys to those contracts.

So, yes, it is disproportionately Dodgers. But there are times when someone will turn up their nose at the Dodgers offer. Either they'll be outbids or just someone else makes a more compelling pitch. So I had to kind of remind myself of that because I was thinking, gosh, did the Dodgers ever miss when they really set their sights on someone? And occasionally they do, I think. They have a high hit rate. And they also aim at a lot of guys. Yeah. And, you know, you could nitpick, like, did they really think that a $600 million offer for Juan Soto would be sufficient? You know, is that a, not that it's not a real offer, but is it an offer that they have sort of a comfortable expectation he would accept? Maybe not. They couldn't sign Corey Seeger because they knew that they were going to have Mookie Betts, who is not retiring before his deal is done, available to play shortstop.

And come on, keep up. I was also thinking, you know, we talked about Teoscar Hernandez and his deficient defense in either corner. And if only Shohei would just stop slacking and would pick up a glove every now and I mean, he does when he pitches, obviously. But if he could get out there and play some outfield, that would be a huge boon to the Dodgers because then Teosker could DH and you could have Otani ranging around out there in the corners.

I mean, that might be a one to two win upgrade right there, assuming that Shohei Otani doesn't just self-destruct because he's both pitching and playing outfield and he's in the field every single day. I'm sure that that would not have any ill. effects at all. But, you know, if he could, if this were just some sort of simulation instead of an actual flesh and blood being who might get fatigued and perhaps be at a higher risk of injury. Yeah. That would really benefit them because of Teasca's shortcomings out there. Yeah, it's too bad that he's just like not versatile as a player. Oh, Johnny. I would like a game of him in the outfield just because I would like to see how bad. the crash out would be on Dodgers Twitter or Blue Sky or what have you. Like how,

how immediately panicked would people be? If Otani went out there, you mean? Yeah, because, you know, outfielders, well, you know, how hard did they work really? They just stand around for the most part. The ball doesn't even get to them most of this. Yeah, no, hey, he played a few innings in the outfield for the angels and he never even got a chance out there. Yeah.

Yeah. The question of how good is his glove at this juncture remains unanswered. Yeah, it puts the lie to that maxim that the ball always finds you out there. You know, you always like whenever someone changes positions or they're playing a new position or whatever, the ball always finds you out. They hit it right to you. Yeah, not in Not an Otani's case. He was out there for some innings. Do you think that's because the ball is really worried about him and it feels like being benevolent?

Maybe the ball was just like, hey, I like this Watanai guy. I don't need to. I want to hang out with him, but I want him to be well. And I'm going to forego my own happiness and a good hang in order to keep him sound. Did you ever think of that? I did not until now. Eight in a third outfield innings for the angels. That's more than I thought.

Yeah, that was a little more than I remembered. And not a single chance. So they could just stash him out there. Maybe he has some magical ability to repel the ball. and the ball will never be hit to him, and it could be hit to other competent fielders instead of Teasper Hernandez. It's worth exploring, at least.

I know he was, I think he was shagging some balls out there. I know he volunteered, of course, to play outfield in the postseason, and Dave did not take him up on that. But every now and then, you know, he makes some noises about that. We probably won't see it unless he is prevented from pitching at some point permanently.

but, and I can't argue with it, but it is one of the few disappointments that I have about Otani that we just, like, haven't really gotten to see whether he could hack it out there and how good he could have been. Yeah, you know, but again, it's nice to have some mysteries. Yeah, just the unfulfilled promise and potential of Shohei Otani. It's really sad. Oh, boy. Also, I don't know if we said this explicitly.

Maybe it was implied, but one of the nice things, when you have a scene, you have a scene, sequence of signings like that where two teams are interested in someone. One team signs that guy, and then the other team is left to have to sign someone else instead. And that's what happened seemingly with the Mets. They were interested in Tucker. Then they didn't get Tucker. So they got Bichette instead. And then the Phillies were interested in Bichet. They didn't get Bichet. They got real Muto instead. And so for the Mets, it's kind of a double bowness, if you will, that they got Bo Bichette and also Bo blocked the Phillies, right? It's always special. You can't quantify that or you could, I guess, but we don't typically. But the value of preventing

a division rival, a direct competitor from signing someone that you just signed, that's a big benefit if you expect to be in a tight division race, because it's not just, hey, we've upgraded by three wins or whatever it is. It's also we kept. We kept. our opponents down by an equivalent amount maybe. And so it's like double the benefit. And in fact, Dave Dembrowski was talking about that. And, you know, he said he doesn't anticipate any additional big signings and he's happy with the roster the way it is, et cetera, et cetera.

But he also did, I think, use the phrase gut punch to describe learning that Bobeshet was not signing with them, that they were very close to a deal with him and that it was a gut punch and that they were upset to miss out on him. So, you know, that makes you feel probably even better as a Mets fan or it should. Yeah, I think that, you know, if we were giving the Mets fan hierarchy of need, well, first is they would like to return to the postseason and Winter World Series. Second is probably never having to hear Lull Mets ever again. But I think third is sticking it to the Phillies. Like, it's pretty, it's pretty high up there, you know. And vice versa.

I don't mean to suggest that there is like a unique pettiness that afflicts Mets fans. I mean to say that the entire mid-Atlantic corridor is infected with that instinct. Another thing about the Mets, though, is that, and we talked about how their offseason has been sort of awkward and surprised. Like they've shipped out a lot of long-term players, of course, and they've also made some additions, and they've brought in good players, but at surprising positions. Positions those players haven't played, positions that maybe the Mets didn't anticipate that they would be signing those players to play. And because of that, it is a strange roster right now. And there's a month to go until, you know, games start or whatever. But still, and you know, spring training games, that is.

So there's even more time. it's a strange lopsided kind of misalignment because we talked about how they have all these infield guys who now are seemingly hopelessly blocked and I don't know if if Brett Beatty starts playing outfield or what but sure you know like viantos and Beatty and Mauricio and Acuna and all these guys like they had infield depth not sure things exactly but then all those guys are now behind Polanco and Bichet and meanwhile in the outfield it's it's It's kind of slim pickings, especially like in left and center. They project to be the 25th best team in left field and the 26th best team in centerfield.

And there's a lot of overlap in the names at those positions. And they're not inspiring names. So I know they just signed Bichet, but you could certainly pencil Belanger in there. Like he wouldn't make a lot of sense for them or even Harrison Bader or someone if you go achieve. or the Yankees outbid you for Bellinger or whatever it is. But it is just a very oddly constructed roster. And it might work out. But yeah, I can't imagine that they drew it up this way.

Exactly. Like, let's just, we have a bunch of infielders. Okay, maybe they don't feel great about a lot of those infielders, but bringing in other infielders to displace them and then kind of not having two-thirds of an outfield on January 20th. I don't know. It's odd. It's a kind of weird group.

They could really use, like, yeah, I feel bad picking on Tyrone Taylor, but they really could use some. Well, what they should do is have like a Tyrone Taylor and then someone other than Carson Benj. I know. Yeah, so he's, you know, one of their top prospects, but he is very far from proven. In fact, we are speaking on his 23rd birthday, so happy birthday to him. Happy birthday, Carson, as we crap all over your fit on this roster. We are giving you the very best gift of all self-dict. Yes.

I don't know if he's going to be a top 100 guy for Fangraphs, but he was not a consensus top 100 guy last year. BP had him on their list, but none of the other major sources. And he was in the futures game. But he reached AAA, but he didn't hit there. So he has 24 games above AA of experience. And are they just going to count on him to step right in and take over one of those outfield slots? Maybe he can handle that.

But it's far from certain. So that's kind of where they are now hoping that he can just hit the ground running. Yeah. He moved into the top 100 for us over the summer, I think. He wasn't a preseason top 100 guy for us. But he was certainly by the trade that they're. line and I think a little bit before that. Yeah, it's a, you know, I think that generally you want to maximize that every opportunity

you can, like just getting good guys on your roster. And but there's also like a logical limit to that, right? And is this team, especially from a lineup perspective, like, is this team better being able to go Lindor, Soto, Bichette, Polanco Semyon? Yeah, I would argue that they are, but they do have to field the rest of the time. And so you, but also, but also taking the other side of that, like, are you really worried that, like, Jorge Polanco at first base is going to be your undoing? I mean, I'm not. He'll be able to play first base, probably, at least probably better than he could play second base, which is looking pretty bad for a while there. So it is, it is an odd group. And what it really speaks to to my mind is just, like, the posity of really compelling defensive outfield options in this free agent class.

Once you get past Bellinger and then Bader is like the lower, the lower dollar figure sort of version. And you wouldn't want Tucker in center field. So it's just, you know, it's like if you really needed like a bang up center fielder, your options were kind of thin on the ground. They remain thin on the ground. Although some of them remain on the ground as it were. So, you know, who knows what they're going to do there. But it's a light group. Maybe they'll go trade for someone.

or maybe they'll yoink Bellinger over to their borough. Yankees fans will. I mean, like, often, it is silly to say that a team's offseason comes down to their ability to sign any particular player. And I don't say that to disrespect the very good baseball players to exist. They are not, like, infinitely fungible between them. But, like, in general, you can find alternatives for your roster needs. it doesn't come down to one guy. The Yankees have kind of put themselves in a position where, like, the successor failure

of their offseason comes down to their ability to resign Cody Bellinger at this point. Like, I think that might be true just based on the other guys they seemingly have passed on in their pursuit of him. So he seems like he has a tremendous amount of leverage, like a shocking amount of leverage. And I like Cody Bellinger. I'm not saying he's a bad player or anything like that. But I think that he has the potential to, like, maybe really outperforming. expectation in terms of his contract because what's he going to what are they going to do not sign him

like they can't have to they can't have to ben he seems to be aware of of that power because yes this is dragging on a bit and i guess yeah for yankees fans the fact that their offseason hinges on resigning a guy they already had yeah and and yankee's fans were not thrilled about the state of the roster with belliger so now it's like well bringing back belliger that seems almost like table stakes. You got to upgrade. You got to do more than that. But yeah, they either have struck out on some guys or refrained from some guys. It has not been inspiring offseason so far. Still a good team, good talented roster should be a contender and everything. But all the teams around them in the division have been very busy. So yeah, they really could use Belcher.

And lastly, when we were talking about, is free agency going to be less impressive because everyone's signing extensions and I was reading the names in the upcoming classes. One thing I didn't say, I did say that some guys can surprise you and you look at the classes a year or two in advance and they don't seem all that formidable, but then someone has a huge year or something and all a sudden they're an appealing for agent. But it can go the other way too where that list can be thinned because either guys get hurt or they're not good or they sign extensions too. You know, It doesn't, it's not quite as common for players to sign extensions when they're a year or two away from free agency as opposed to very early in their careers. It does happen.

It does happen. So, yeah, those guys could be off the market and could reduce that group. And, you know, not everyone is always interested in signing an extension. L.A. La Cruz reportedly turned down an extension offer from the Reds that would have been the biggest contract in franchise history. But, you know, who knows what the exact terms were? and probably I wouldn't blame Ellie for seeing what he can do at this point financially because he's set himself up fairly well, especially if he comes back and has a healthy,

excellent season as was anticipated for him last year. Okay, a few other things. One, when I was just bidding a fond farewell to the player, Rich Hill, I also would like to bid a fund farewell to the person, Wilbur Wood, another even more aged lefty. Wilburwood has retired from life, not just from baseball. Such a weird way to introduce the fact that someone passed. Yes.

He died, is what I'm saying. This past weekend, Wilburwood at age 84, but legendary lefty. And I just wanted to briefly salute him because just what a guy. Like, first of all, just look at his baseball reference headshot. I mean, he's got the mutton chops, the sideburns, just looks like a total boss. And that's just the kind of guy he was. I saw in a few pieces or obits circulating the Roger Angel description of Wilberwood, which I will also circulate. Roger Angel wrote, on the mound, he displays a comfortable expanse of Tum and the stiffish-looking knees of a confirmed endorsement.

And thus resembles a left-handed accountant or pastry shure. F on a Sunday outing. So that's sort of how he presented, at least later in his career. But, like, what a cool career. I mean, first of all, he was a knuckleballer, at least in the latter half of his career, and that's always fun. But what just is absolutely eye-popping when you look at his page, I encourage anyone to go to his player page fan graphs or baseball reference and check out the bold

ink there. Because, like, in the late 60s with the White Sox, first he was a reliever, and he was just a super reliever where he was leading the majors or the league in appearances and games finished every year as a reliever. So like 1968, he throws 88 games, 159 innings, and all but two of those games were in relief with a 1.87 ERA. I mean, that's a pretty awesome season. Just like 80. So he's working, you know, every other day, more than that, every other game. And is is putting up the kind of innings totals that a regular full-season starter

puts up at this point, but he was doing it in relief. So, you know, people always wonder, like, well, now that starters aren't throwing as many innings, might we bring back the 100-inning reliever? And you could kind of have a hybrid and you could have multi-inning outings and you could go more often.

But even that, I don't know if that could happen at this stage because teams are just so cautious with using relievers on back-to-back or back-to-back to belly. days and so you just don't see that. And like teams would never use anyone in as many games, a little along that many innings, you know. So he's just pitching every other game like multiple innings at a time usually. That's pretty awe-inspiring. He did that for a few years. And then they were like, well, why don't you start? And so in 1971, he becomes a full-time starter.

Worked in relief a couple times. But, you know, he started 44 games or 42 games that. year. And that was his low in that five-year stretch. So 71 to 75, he started 42, 49, 48, 42, and 43 games. His innings totals were 334, 376, and two-thirds, 359 in a third, 320 in a third, and 2.91 and a third. He was really just slack in that season. And, you know, just like was winning 20 plus games a year. He lost 20 games a couple times just because he was pitching so often and the White Sox were kind of lousy in some of those years. And he was really valuable and good in those seasons too.

It wasn't just that he was eating innings. They were pretty high quality innings too. Like 1971, he put up 11.7 baseball reference war because that was the year he threw 334 innings, 44 games, 42 starts with a sub two. ERA. Like, he led the league in ERA plus among qualified pitchers while making 42 starts with 334. I mean, that's, that's one of the most valuable pitching seasons we've seen in decades. It'd be almost impossible for anyone to get there these days because you couldn't be that much better than he was on a rate basis. And he's throwing, like, deadball-era innings totals.

And somehow he was third in Cy Young voting that year. third with that kind of season. And then he was second the following year and fifth the following year. But it seems unjust that he never won a Cy Young in those seasons because he deserved it. War-wise, I think he did. Baseball reference war-wise, certainly. So, yeah, it's pretty incredible. And it's amazing because you look at that and you think, like, he was alive as of a few days ago, someone who threw 300, like, made 49 starts in a season.

How was he not dead a century ago or something? It just seems like it's from entirely another era, which it is. And the 70s, you know, were, I guess, the closest thing we've had to, like, deadball era innings totals. That was kind of an outlier of a decade and to some extent like the late 60s with the year of the pitcher and everything. But even relative to his peers, I guess I'm looking at innings pitch leaders from 71 to 75 and wasn't a total outlier. So he was at 1681 and two-thirds over those five years. And number two was Gaylord Perry at 1594 and two-thirds.

So, and Mickey Lollich was at 1560 and Fergie Jenkins and Catfish Hunter, Steve Carlton, Burbaw, I live in Phil Negrows, Tom Seaver, Jim Palmer. Lots of Hall of Famers there. Wilburwood, not a Hall of Famer, but just like a legend. So I was so sorry to see him go because, uh, yeah. That run he had, it's maybe obvious to say that it will never be replicated, barring some really drastic change to the rules and the construction of pitchers pitching staffs and pitcher usage. But it's incredible that that was only 50 years ago because it seems like something out of ancient history. Yeah, I think that it just goes to show that these things, like, they can turn very quickly. Guys who are pitching at the same time that, like, I don't know, the TV shows you watched,

on Nick at night. But it's not that long ago, you know, there were cars then. Credit cards and, you know, telephones and indoor plumbing. And you weren't that far away from computers in your house. So, I don't know, it just can, it can move on you really quickly so you have sympathy for anyone trying to build a roster or have a career. How about that? Yeah.

And you might think that based on those innings, totals and workloads, that his arm would have blown out at the end of it and oh okay it was a valiant effort but ultimately that just goes to show why people don't throw that many endings anymore but that's not what happened actually he got he got hit by a comebacker and i thought you were going to say he got hit by a car because they had those then in the 70s and uh yeah his kneecap was fractured because uh a line drive that ronald floor hit and then yeah and so he came back and just was never really the same and after that and I, you know, I guess was maybe just apprehensive about getting hit again or something, but it wasn't that his arm blew up or anything. And yeah, you know, he was throwing lots of

knuckleballs and that helps. So I guess this is just a roundabout way of saying that we need to bring back knuckleballs. That's part of it. That's always, that's always what we're saying. We're always saying that's standing position here on the podcast. And most people subscribe to that one, I think. And I love the knuckleball lineage because Wilbur Wood learned his knuckleball from Hoyt Wilhelm, and then, you know, other people learned from Wilbur Wood, and it just gets passed down from knuckleball or to knuckleball. That's a special tradition in baseball, I think. But yeah, Wilberwood, just what a legend. So sorry, I never had him on the podcast. That would have been fun. But maybe he would have gotten tired of people asking, how did you throw all those innings? How did you do it?

But, yeah, I wonder what his arm care regimen was if he even had one. Had one. Yeah. I think we can kind of overstate the case a little bit where it's like, these guys weren't, you know, they might be taking some amount of care of themselves. It's not what it is now, but it's not like there's nothing. You know what I mean? You know, yeah, sure.

They'd get some ice on it to get a little rub down, maybe put a jacket on or something. But, yeah, that's, I don't, I mean, just kind of looking at Wilbur Wood. But I doubt that he was doing an intense arm care, you know, shoulder prevention-strengthening regimen. Not that anyone really was at that time. I guess if we go by Fangraph's War, it was perhaps just for him not to get the sigh in 71 because, let's see, he was sixth overall in Fangraph's War that year. But Fergie Jenkins was number one in FanGraphs War with 11.2 that year. And, you know, Wilbur was not a huge strikeout artist. Obviously, those were not as strikeout heavy days.

But, yeah, he was, you know, four to five strikeouts per nine. But, you know, knuckle-puller, low babb, weak contact, and all the rest of it. And good control and just incredible durability. So Wilbur Wood, what a guy. Wilbur Wood. Yeah. Also, wanted to shout out a couple interesting posts published on your website, Fangraphs.com, in the past week or so, which were paired posts by Ben Clemens and Davy Andrews. Yeah.

And Ben Clemens wrote a post entitled, They Don't Make Barrels like they used to. And Davy Andrews did a follow-up entitled They Don't Make Pitch Models like they used to. And they both hit on something interesting. Ben, other Ben, noted that barrels are not as good as they used to be in terms of the type of production that they denote. Like if you have a barrel, you know, it's a stat cast stat, and it's based on your exit speed and your launch angle. And it's basically like barrels are classified as batted ball events who's, you know, have produced a minimum 500 batting average and 1,500. slugging percentage since statcast was implemented, but this was several years ago when that definition was made.

So I've always, you know, I've never really referred to barrels that much. Yeah. I talk about barrel rate maybe sometimes, but it's, it's sort of squishy, you know, because it's just like these are batted balls that typically produce an outcome at least that good. Yes. It's sort of imprecise, but, you know, a useful analytical concept. But perhaps a little less useful these days because as Ben noted, the weighted on base average on barrels has declined pretty significantly over the past decades of, you know, 10 years or so of the stat-cast era that we have.

And so early in that era in 2015, barrels were worth something like a 1450 Wobah. And this past year, they were like a 1,200 Woba, which is still really good. It's still really good to hit a barrel, obviously. but there's been a significant decline in how productive a barrel is. And there are many possible reasons for that, which Ben detailed in his article, could be the ball. That the ball is not carrying as well as it was in some of those seasons, of course. So that's part of it. But that's not the only thing.

You know, part of it could be outfield defense continuing to improve. We've talked plenty about that. but it also could be something having to do, as Ben noted, with Goodhart's Law. So this is interesting. So Good Heart's Law is when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to become a good measure, or you can phrase it some other way. But it's basically like once you start aiming for some statistical benchmark, some metric that has proved predictive in the past,

once everyone starts then tailoring their performance to that measure, then it becomes less useful as a measure. And that could be happening here. So maybe now that barrels are all the rage and people talk about barrels and players get paid based on barrels or some equivalent proprietary metric, that maybe they are aiming for barrels

and they are hitting batted balls that satisfy the criteria for barrels but are not as productive. Right. Because you could say, just, you know, hit a ball really hard to center field or something. And it'll just die out there. It's less likely to go over the fence, but you still get your barrel because you hit that

ball hard enough and at the specific launch angle that you get credited with a barrel, but it's not actually as good as barrels used to be before anyone knew what a barrel was, you know, before that was a stat when people were just trying to do things that led to productive batted balls. That was one thing. And now it's like, oh, let's just hit a barrel. And whether that leads to actual good outcomes or not, usually it does, but maybe a little less.

So that's an interesting idea. Because if you start just aiming to produce barrels rather than the outcome that a barrel historically generated, then maybe it's not quite as useful. And so, inspired by that, Davey looked to see if the same finding applied to stuff models. So, you know, pitching bot and stuff plus and all these many models that are available publicly or privately,

just to extrapolate from the characteristics of a pitcher's repertoire to say how good the stuff is. And it does look as if something similar has happened there, that there's been a compression in the range of possible stuff measurements, basically, like the standard deviation of stuff has declined, and Davey likened this to catcher framing. Once everyone appreciated how valuable that was, they started training for it or guys who weren't good at framing, weren't getting to catch anymore. And so the range of framing in the majors compressed and the best guys weren't as good relative to the average because the baseline increased.

That seems to have happened with stuff as well. And so there might just be less variation in stuff because everyone is just trying to get great stuff all the time. and if that's what you're aiming for just to have great stuff as opposed to to get strikes or to get outs or whatever, then, you know, part of it is just like guys who don't have good stuff. They're going to lose their roster spot. They're going to lose their role. They're not going to throw as many innings. And other guys are going to aim for stuff and they're going to come up and take those jobs. But also, maybe sometimes you'll, you know, try to throw your hardest at the expense of something else, movement or command or whatever it is.

And these models can measure command and other things too, movement also. But like if you're just trying to game the model, basically, then maybe that will take a toll. And it seems like the correlation has decreased that the correlation between stuff and actual performance by pitchers is a little lower than it was a few years ago. And we only have these stats for, you know, four or five years or so. So it's not a huge difference, but it's perceptible. and Davy demonstrated that there's a real difference here. Or it could just be that there's so much compression in the stuff just because everyone kind of has good stuff these days,

which you always hear. It's like the mop-up man today would have had mind-blowing stuff however long ago or whatever, you know, every reliever comes out of the pen, throw in 98 with a nasty slider. And so if everyone's doing that, then the correlation might decrease just because it's like there's just not as much separation. among the players, basically.

And so you can't really rely on the stuff plus purely to predict, say, a pitcher's Wobah allowed. So that's really interesting. And I just, I wonder, you know, you could constantly update your models for those metrics, maybe. Or if you're a team, how do you handle that? Right. You know, teams, even if they're not showing someone, they're publicly available metrics, then players are going to be looking at their fangrass page, but they're also going to be looking at whatever readout they get from their team telling them to do this or that. And I wonder how you guard against

that, just trying to juice those stats, basically, as opposed to trying to, you know, actually get good outcomes, which, you know, you're doing too. But there's, there's, like, misaligned incentives there, basically. I think that it's just a good reminder that, like, our understanding of these statistics, like, it does require checking in on a fairly regular basis, and they require maintenance. And, like, you know, you can't just assume like, oh, I know exactly what that barrel rate means, right? Like, I think it's cool.

I like that we're doing this stuff. Yeah, yeah. I like when, uh, when multiple members of the Fangraph staff are kind of in conversation like that. Yeah. You know, someone posts something and then make someone else think of something. And then,

and then they investigate something. But, uh, yeah. This would not have been as big an issue probably in the past, like in the early days of Sabermetrics because there was a bigger spread of stuff. Yeah, there was a bigger spread. And also, I think people in baseball and certainly the players were basically oblivious to this stuff. So like if Sabermatricians on rec sports baseball or whatever were talking about on base percentage or whatever they were talking about back in those days, the players would not have been aware of that. And so they would not have been trying to

tailor their performance to that. But then once it kind of broke containment and it became mainstream. You know, when the saber matricians were outsiders and no one in the game was paying attention to what they were saying, then you would not have had to worry about, like, is there some observer effect or participant effect here or something? Like the stats we put out, the players will start changing how they behave and perform, and then our stats won't work as well, and then maybe we'll have to update them or something. That just wouldn't have been a concern because players weren't paying attention to that stuff. But then, once they started getting paid based on how well they graded in those categories, and once those saber matricians started working for teams and helping

determine what they got paid, and then this current generation of players who, as Bauman blogged in the past, speak like nerds and, you know, use the same lingo and look at the same stats, they're so highly aware of this stuff that there's now no lag time, basically. Someone put some finding out there and the players are going to know about that, you know, almost immediately. And then maybe start changing the way they play based on that. So it's an interesting kind of interaction that is probably more present in this era when this stuff is everywhere. And it really penetrates clubhouses and gets adopted and embraced by all these players. So I don't know how to account for that or safeguard one's models against that. but it's something to be aware of.

Yeah, it's certainly something to be aware of. And I think to model makers' credit is something that they are often grappling with. But, yeah, I think that you have the issue of players starting to shoot for that stuff. And to be clear, I think they're more shooting for like whatever their internal metrics say than public side stuff models necessarily. But it's definitely something to account for. And I think that it's our responsibility as saber matricians. to be checking in on, like, what does this metric mean today? Like, being able to help level set for people, I think, is important.

And it's particularly true maybe with the stat-cast-based metrics, because I think that, you know, some of the limitations of those metrics were not properly appreciated by the sort of average fan when they were rolled out. And so trying to get people to understand, like, the places they're really close. cool, but also the things they're not telling you, right? Like that when you see like the, you know, the expected batting average on that ball was, you know, 950, no. But you know what I mean? Like you, you see these stats get thrown around sort of willy-nilly and you think you know what they mean. And then if you think for a moment about how, say, it doesn't take spray angle into

account, well, maybe that changes your understanding of what that number should really be. So I think that we, having a viewing advanced metrics as a dialogue rather than like a one and done, I think is pretty useful. Okay. And that is one of my go-to examples, I think, for when I'm always amazed that people just seemingly weren't playing in an optimal way in some respects before the numbers brought something to light. And it's outfield positioning. That's one of my go-to examples.

You know, forget about like the infield overshift and all that. that's a good example too. But just the fact that outfielders have gotten so much more efficient at positioning themselves. And I don't think it's just that they have their positioning cards. It's just that overall, like, they play a lot deeper than they used to. Like, as Clemens noted in his post, the average centerfielder starts 10 feet farther back than they did in 2015. And that's happened at a lot of positions. And it just, it turns out that playing back is pretty beneficial on the whole because you do cut off a lot of extra base.

hits and yeah, you're going to give up a few dinkers that just dunk in there, but it's overall worth it. I don't think thinkers is a word, but it seems like it should be. It's close enough to various other terms that we have for balls that just fall in. So, yeah, it seems like on the whole outfields have gotten a lot better, and that seems to be one reason. It's just, hey, back up. That's like, that's all it was.

Just they should have been farther back the whole time and just didn't realize it. or, you know, other things change. The ball changes and hitters are swinging up or whatever, and maybe it's more optimal to play deeper and in earlier areas it wouldn't have been. So you can't always generalize that. But yeah, this is one area where it seems like the numbers have uncovered a competitive advantage. Okay.

And lastly, we are recording it kind of an awkward time because we're about an hour before the Hall of Fame results are announced on MLB Network. And so as we speak, We do not have the results which people will when they hear this. And I can provide the exact numbers in the outro. But it doesn't seem like there's a ton of suspense here. There could be a surprise. We'll see.

But based on all the work that Ryan Tibido and his team have done with the ballot tracker and based on the projections that are out there, including the one day before the announcement projections from Jason Sardell, who is kind of the market leader when it comes to predicting the Hall of Fame announcement's results and was our guest on episode 2116 a couple of years ago. Seems like Carlos Beltron is pretty much a lock, and that Andrew Jones appears to be very likely to be inducted, according to Jason's most recent projections as I record this, Beltron 100% of simulations he gets in,

and Jones 93%. So it would appear that a couple of good centerfielders are going to get in on the BBWA ballot here. Also, some other guys who are taking large leaps here. Chase Outley projected to get to 59% support, Andy Pettit, 50%, Felix Hernandez, 49%. So it would appear, I guess, a couple of things. one that nobody is really holding the sign-stealing scandal, the banging scheme against Beltron now,

or at least enough people have said, okay, he served his time, basically. He waited a little bit, and now he can go in. And Andrew Jones, who, you know, was not nearly as clear-cut a case just purely on a performance basis as Beltron. But it's a case that's based on him basically being one of the, best defensive center fielders of all time, if not the best. And he also hit 400 homers and everything. But, you know, he had shortcomings as a player and got old early, et cetera. So he wasn't as clear-cut a case and has made quite a late charge in his last years of eligibility to get to this point. But he, of course, does have a domestic violence rap against him, which some people have

have held against him and said I'm not voting for him because of that, but clearly not most people. So I don't know. I continue to just be not even intrigued, but just kind of confused, I guess, by the moral standards of the voters. And it's such a mess and it's always been a mess. Maybe people think that's more of a feature than a bug, but I consider it kind of frustrating that it's so inconsistent and the guidelines are so unclear. and everyone just does it in their own way, and then everyone just muddles to their own answer, and you get this collective answer that changes every year.

But, you know, some things are clearly no-noes and absolutely not, and obviously A-Rod's not going to get in, and Manny Ramirez is not going to get in. But other things, like helping orchestrate a stealing, sign-sealing scandal or violence against a partner. These things are not. precluding people from getting in, or even Andy Pettit, who's really his support has grown by leaps and bounds here. Yeah. He's also a PD guy and he did HGH. And I know there's a perception

out there that, oh, he just did it one time and it was just for injury recovery or whatever. But that's not quite accurate. And he was actually kind of deceptive and misleading about what he did. And then he was kind of forced to admit that, okay, maybe it wasn't just once. And for some reason, he seems to get a pass on that. where others don't even though, you know, it's not like there's more evidence against Gary Sheffield or something, but that gets held against him. So it's all just so, so inconsistent, so flummoxing. But we are seeing, I guess, a reevaluation of pitchers. Maybe that's something we can take away from the gains that petted and Felix are making and maybe even burly up a bit, too. So that's something. But I don't know. Any thoughts about Beltron and seemingly Jones?

getting in? I'm surprised that the sign-sealing stuff wasn't held against Belchron for longer. I understand the logic of it's seeming like he was sort of the most convenient player fall person, but like the facts of his involvement are not contested, right? Like him being an organizer of the scheme is something that is sort of understood as part of the fact pattern of that scandal. So I find that part weird. I don't know how I would have felt about it because I do think that, you know, because he was not going to be an active player any longer, it was easier to sort of put this stuff on him in a more named way than the current players because there was this understanding that the players would not be suspended so that they would cooperate with the investigation.

And because the league wanted to make a point that this was a leadership issue and that their prior. sort of threat had been that, you know, executives, coaches, et cetera, would suffer consequences if this sort of behavior wasn't stamped out. So I don't know that I necessarily have an issue with someone voting for him. I'm just surprised that like the dip was like one year, you know, where he debuted. And I think that if it had not been for sign stealing, he probably would have maybe been a first ballot guy or at least well on his way to making it in his second year. So I'm just, I don't, I don't mean it in a gilting way. I just, I'm a little. I just, I'm a little. little surprise that it didn't stick with him longer. So there's that. I am still at this stage

trying to figure out how I am going to deal with questions of domestic violence when I am a voter. And because I don't have a answer for myself, I do feel a little weird being dismayed by that not counting against Jones. For other people, I don't know. I also don't know if I, just in terms of like where he falls on the peak versus longevity question think that it's enough. But I don't have to vote for him. So I don't have to have a settled opinion on that. Now do I? I think, you know, if I had to put money on it, which I don't and wouldn't anyway,

that we will end up with a one candidate writer class Beltron and that Jones will linger for another year. So I think that it's fine for like a kind of controversial guy. to be the only guy who gets in a year where the class, the first year class is kind of underwhelming. I think the starting pitcher stuff is fascinating because everyone, I think there are people who are genuinely like reconsidering their standards for starters and saying that, you know, actually they think that Felix's peak is sufficiently superlative for them to be like, okay, he's a Hall of Famer. But I think that what we've seen more this year is a lot of people, Jay Jaffe included, saying, like, I want to keep having a conversation about what our

standards are going to be. And so I want these guys to linger on the ballot so that we can continue to sort of hone what we think that's going to be for starters on a going forward basis, because particularly once, you know, Verlander and Scherzer and Kershaw and Granky presumably are in, like, we're going to have to deal with these far fewer than 200 endings a year guys. and recalibrate potentially our expectations for them. Or some people might just say, well, guess what? Another starter's never getting it, never again. There are going to be those people in the electorate.

I don't think that I'm going to fall in that category, particularly since so much of the decreased usage is a team-side-initiated strategic shift rather than something that I think starters are like super enthusiastic about. And so I don't love the idea of something so far out of a, or potentially out of a, players control being what dictates like whether we ever have a starter again in the hall of fame that feels like we're getting something wrong but i do find it interesting that so much of the

the conversation has been about like continuing to have a conversation rather than a lot of people enthusiastically coming out and saying like actually i just spent a lot of time with felix's career and i think that he's a hall of famer or i think that cole hamils is a no doubt hall of famer it's like no we want to we want to like reserve the right to decide later so let's keep these guys around so that they don't fall off the ballot, which I don't think Felix or Hamels were really in danger of doing. I mean, Jay's talked about how last year he voted for Felix so that he wouldn't fall below 5%. And, you know, Felix cleared that bar comfortably. So it's just an interesting that that is so that the meta-discourse around the standard is driving

so much of the voting behavior in that particular position I find really interesting. And then I also have one more thing I find interesting. And I'll stop talking, which is, that I think that we're going to potentially see a split or a gap, rather, between the final vote tally for Padroia versus David Wright. And I find that fascinated because, like, that's the same. That's the same guy. It's not the same guy, but like, that's a similar enough guy. If you were voting for one, you should vote for the other one. Did my whispering come through? Don't you love it when I whisper into the microphone? Another one is Cole Hamels, of course, in that starter group. And he's first time eligible. and Jason had him at 26% median projection support percentage in his first crack at it. So, yeah, it's like Petit and Felix and Hamels and Burley.

They aren't all exactly the same guy, but they're close enough that they do seem to be moving together in the same direction. And I think often when people are just like, well, let's keep the conversation going and let's kick the can down the road. I think they are planning to vote for those guys eventually. I think they just kind of want to talk themselves into it. Because if they don't on some level really want to vote for those guys, then would they really care? I always think that's kind of like, well, I just need a little more time to come around to the idea. But if my position is, well, I want him to linger so that we have more chances, then it's, you know, because it's just, it gets more palatable over time. there are so many guys we've seen who have just climbed from almost nothing to all the way in some cases.

Even Petit, who started in 2019 at 9.9% support and now might be looking at close to 50%. I mean, that's an awful lot of people. It's not just new voters who have a different opinion of Pennett. It's people just flip-flopping and changing their minds. And that just happens with so many guys. I guess that's why, I mean, Sam's position. these days is like they're all going to get in eventually so why why wait you know just like i mean other than the the true leave you know extreme long shots like no one would ever consider it

if you're kind of in the conversation and you're on the ballot and you're going to be returning it's they all climb over time people i think just want to see guys get into the hall of fame which is just kind of nice and and then people make cases for them and it just starts to get more palatable and normalized and it sounds like, oh, yeah, that guy, I could see him as a Hall of Famer. Sure. When the first time you saw him on the ballot, you thought, oh, no chance that that guy's not a Hall of Famer. But then you just, you get used to them, you know? And so. You get used to them. Yeah. It's just, oh, okay, look at this guy's back. I'm seeing his name in the company of all these other guys who are Hall of Famers who are about to be or who have

been inducted already. Okay, maybe he does belong in this cohort. Sure. Okay. Let's, let's do it. And Chase Utley seems like, you know, he's climbing and he's, you figure that he was going to be the next kind of like, you know, Scott Rowland type who would just get over the hump somehow and people would pump him up. And Utley, probably an easier sell than Roland in some respects, just a higher profile player when he was active. But, yeah, I don't know if we can credit Felix for this or whether it's like the fame of Felix and the peak of Felix that is just going to propel. all these similar guys along with him. Because if you're, if you want to vote for Felix, if Felix seems like a Hall of Famer to you, but you also want to be kind of objective about things

and not go purely based on gut and vibes. And then you look at the numbers and you think, gosh, well, is Felix all that different from Cole Hamels or Randy Pettit or Mark Burley? And then, well, if I want to vote for one of these guys, I guess I got to vote for them all. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I think that like you can continue to maintain if, you know,

I think Hall of Fame voters should figure out what their people. PED stance is going to be and then they should stick with it, which isn't to say that you're thinking can't evolve, but like going into your first ballot, you have a, have a logically consistent ballot around the PED question. So there's that. But you're right. Like if I, I'm two years away from getting my first ballot. Yeah, because I was 2018. So then not 2028 for the 29 class. Like, I think that if you're voting for Felix, you have to vote for Cole Hamels. Like, talk about the same guy. They're not the same guy, but there's enough. similarity there. And really the difference is the Sy Youngs, which is about, which isn't to say

that Cole Hamels, like, didn't deserve, you know what I mean? Like, you got to, I'm just saying, I got on the same. I think I wrote a piece about that for baseball perspective back in the day, maybe. Maybe? Maybe. Do I remember my own life? Don't know. Don't know. Don't know if I do. Actually, I'll come across an article that I wrote for BP and it will have completely slipped my mind. Usually I'll, I'll remember it once I see it and I'll think, oh, yeah, I wrote that. But A majority of my grad school education. Yeah. Yeah.

Anyway, when it comes to Andrew Jones and other people who have fallen into that category, I feel like it is defensible to basically have your metric just be. Was the guy good at baseball or not? And if that's the way you want to approach it, I think a lot of people approach it that way. Or I guess if you want to even draw the line morally and say, well, was he a transgressor on the field? Did he cheat? did he do PEDs or whatever, what he did in his personal life, it's not for me to weigh in on that, or this is not the Baseball Hall of Fame's job, it's just, were these the good baseball players? My whole discomfort with the process is that ostensibly it is supposed to be part of the voting process.

And, you know, I guess you could just disregard those instructions if you care to and take your own approach. But it's just, I don't know, I'm kind of uncomfortable either way. That's why I've ended up not voting. It's like, well, if it tells me to. consider the character of the guy, then how can I not consider the character of the guy? And then if he did something like that, how could I elevate him to the status of Hall of Famer? But then I don't love that either, because I do see some value in just having a place to name the best baseball players. And so if you just keep out a bunch of guys for non-baseball related transgressions, well, then suddenly

you're just awarding like it's the best baseball players who were also good guys as far as we know. And then it's like, is that really useful? You know? And so it's just, it's kind of complicated and unsatisfying one way or another. And also there's just, there's no way to indicate like, yeah, on the plaque or in the museum or on the display or whatever in the plaque room. Oh, yeah, this guy was great at baseball, but he also not such a great guy or he did this and that. Like you can't really indicate that in any official way. And so if you don't know those things about the player, then you think, well, the writers are just endorsing.

the character of this fellow in addition to his performance on the field, which I think you could resolve, as I've said, if you just go to the football model of, yeah, we don't care what you did. Like, if you were good at football. But that's not ideal either because, you know. I wouldn't want that as a future voter. Are you kidding me? Especially because, yeah, if the guy's alive and then he gets to have his day and give a speech and be honored and everything. And so if it's not a good guy, then do you do you? want him up on that stage with all the legends of the game. So that's why the whole thing just makes

me kind of uncomfortable and I've just sort of set it out. And it's hard because, you know, and we don't have to linger over long on this. I'm sure we'll talk more about the results on our next show. But we have limited insight into these guys as people, period. And then we have further limited insight into the work or not work that they are doing as it pertains to those individual failings after they've occurred. I can conceive of things where, like, interpersonal transgressions, crimes, what have you, where just them having occurred once would make me say, no, we shouldn't elevate this person to the Hall of Fame.

I think that human behavior and growth exists on a continuum, though. And so it's like if you have a domestic violence incident and then you do the work of repair and you try to work with others to embrace healthier modes of conflict resolution? Like, how do we account for that versus someone who's unrepentant? You know what I mean? Like, I think that the one posture that I am skeptical of when it comes to Hall of Fame voters or the people who are like, oh, well, this is easy to sort out, I don't think that that's true. And that doesn't mean that at the end of a complicated process, you're, you are voting

for every guy who has a sterling resume, but has been. violent toward his intimate partners. But the idea of it being straightforward, I don't think that that's quite right, because I don't think that people are straightforward. I don't mean that to say that you should get to like hide in the, you know, the comfort of complication, but rather to say that like, I'm skeptical you're doing the work around these questions if you're like, oh, well, it's easy. It's not easy, you know, it's not. So I have sympathy for that. And as I said, I don't know what my answer is going to be. I don't know what I think quite the right approach there is.

And I have more sort of sympathy for the challenge of it as I get closer to voting myself because, well, like, Andrew Jones pled guilty in that case. This isn't a hypothetical. We don't have to put a legend in front of his indiscretions. Like, he pled guilty. But it's a tricky thing. Like, I imagine that one of the cases all I have to deal with in this stuff is a role to shaman, right? suspended, you could have a rule on your ballot that if you're suspended under the league's policy, that's it in much the same way that like Jay uses the suspension versus non-distinction in the

PED context, right? That if you're part of the Wild West, well, you're part of the Wild West and he's not going to retroactively apply justice to those guys, but A-Rod, he won't vote for because A-Rod started a suspension under the league's policy. You could have a similar posture for domestic violence. Maybe that's the answer. I think that like what we've seen from Chapman in the year's sense is that he's a stone cold weirdo who had a seeping tattoo which remains disgusting but also has spoken candidly about this stuff says that he's still in therapy and tries to be an example for younger guys specifically around DV would we know that more if he were say a native English speaker I don't know the answer to that

I don't know how to deal with any of this stuff I started the I started the episode worked up about nonsense and now I am worked up about something with much greater stakes. But I think it's a hard thing to answer and I don't know that we're going to get resolution with it with Andrew Jones's Hall of Fame case. You know what I mean? Like we're just not. Yep. And another guy who seems to be about to fall off the ballot is Ryan Braun, who, you know,

other transgressions in his case, he probably wasn't good enough, long enough to get in anyway. But I do wonder how much of him falling off that quickly has to do with it. the people who are, I appreciate the place he has sort of in the pantheon, but this is like the people who are getting themselves twisted into knots over Omar to scale. You can just say he's not a Hallfamer on the merits. Yeah, you can sidestep on everything else and just say he wasn't good enough. Yeah, here I am being like, this isn't, if you won't embrace that complication, you're taking the easy way out. I don't think that that is an argument to deploy around stat stuff.

And I just think that Omar is not a Hall of Famer. Also, don't let yourself get worked by a candidate. it like this. That's embarrassing. That's unsurious. I'm sorry to call out my fellow BBWA members, but like the people who, Omar Vescal is sliding into every Hall of Fame voters DMs all the time trying to work the voters. Don't let this guy work you. Be serious. Okay, outro time. The Mets anticipated our critiques of their outfield situation and after we recorded, they traded for Luis Robert Jr. from the White Sox. That's an upgrade. They're not. now 13th in projected team production from Centerfield. More on that trade next time. And speaking of centerfielders, let's turn our attention to the Hall of Fame. Well, the results are in and now out.

And the projections were pretty much on point. Carlos Beltron was indeed elected, not inducted yet, but elected, with 84.2% support. Andrew Jones also cleared the 75% threshold at 78.4. And yes, than it was Chase Utley at 59.1. Andy Pettit, 48.5. Felix at 46.1. Early was down at 20%. And Braun did fall off the ballot with 3.5%. Felix was neck and Neck with Luis Apparicio for the biggest all-time year-over-year gain. Actually, Felix was a nose ahead. Utley and Petit up there, too. They all took leaps. I know we've talked to various guests about this over the years, but the suspense really is reduced by all the work that Ryan Tibado and team do track. the public ballots, almost 250 of them this year, that were released before this announcement. That just gives you a pretty good guide. So we generally have a strong sense of what will happen. I think it can be good to have more information to know things in advance. But it does definitely detract from some of the excitement on the day the results are announced, assuming you're still excited about the Hall of Fame at all. One tidbit that's kind of interesting, though also not that

surprising. The voters just voted for fewer players per ballot this year. This is something we sort of anticipated when we talked to Jay last year and something that he's written about. It was just one of the weakest classes. So it makes sense that even though that might offer some opportunities for other guys who were blocked by quote unquote better candidates before, that some voters, the smaller hall folks, would just draw a line and say, nope, not for me. And this did make me do a bit of a double take. There were 11 blank ballots submitted. So that's not people like me who don't vote and don't even bother to get a ballot. That's people who get a ballot and mail it in with no names checked, which does make it harder for anyone to get in. Last year, there were zero blank ballots.

11 this year, which is the most since the record 14 in 2021. The average ballot this time around contained 5.77 names down a full name from last year, 6.77, and 20.9% of the voters used all 10 slots down from 24.9% a year ago. So yeah, a lot of voters not impressed by or enthused about this year's selection of candidates. But Beltron and Jones will be joining Jeff Kent in Cooperstown this summer. You can support Effectively Wild on Patreon by going to patreon.com slash Effectively Wild, as have the following five listeners who have already signed up and pled some monthly or yearly amount to help keep the podcast going, help us stay ad-free, and get themselves access to some perks, Jack, Greg, Lisa Holt, Derek Kor, and Andrew Blackburn. Thanks to all of you. Patreon perks include access to

the Effectively Wild Discord group for patrons only. monthly bonus episodes, playoff live streams, prioritized email answers, personalized messages, shoutouts at the end of episodes, potential podcast appearances, discounts on merch and ad-free fan graphs memberships, and so much more. Check out all the offerings at patreon.com slash effectively wild. If you are a Patreon supporter, you can message us through the Patreon site. If not, you can contact us via email, send your questions, comments, intro, and outro themes to podcast at Fangraphs.com. You can rate, review, and subscribe to Effectively Wild on Apple Podcast, Spotify, YouTube music and other podcast platforms.

You can join our Facebook group at facebook.com slash group slash effectively wild. You can find the Effectively Wild sub-edit at our slash Effectively Wild. And you can check the podcast post at Fangraphs or the episode description in your podcast app for links to the stories and stats we cited today. Thanks to Shane McKeon for his editing and production assistance. Thanks to listener and jazz musician Sam Chess. Check him out at samchessmus.com for his cover version of the Ben Gibbard outro theme

that you'll be hearing in just a second. Of course, you're hearing Ben's original. Now, that will do it for today. Thanks as always for listening, and we will be back with another episode a little later this week. Talk to you then.