Effectively Wild: A FanGraphs Baseball Podcast - Effectively Wild Episode 246: Anniversary Episode Emails

Episode Date: July 18, 2013

On EW’s one-year anniversary, Ben and Sam chat with Jason Wojciechowski about baseball and copyright law, then answer other listener emails.

Hey Ron! Every night we get asked to sing happy birthday to somebody special. And we get asked to sing happy anniversary to you. Yeah, that's right. We can't do it for one, not for all. So let's do it for all! Everybody happy birthday! Anniversary to you! We're all in on that same! Now that's funny.

Happy, happy birthday! Anniversary to you. email show today and we're going to do that for a couple reasons one is that we had more good emails than we were able to answer yesterday and two is that it was either this or taking all-star week off and this is the compromise we reached so uh here we go um the the first question wait wait i have a thing to say sure uh first of all happy birthday. The other thing is that it's our anniversary. Really? Yeah. You're saying that episode one was on my birthday? Well, technically it's now your, it's the day after your, well, it's the day after your birthday if you're listening to this on Thursday.

But yeah, I guess we recorded our first show on your birthday. How about that? Yeah. So 246 episodes in 365 days. Interesting. I remember my first topic, I believe, was Aroldis Chapman.

I think we just... Didn't we just do one on that day? No, no, no. The premise was already established. I remember talking for a while about why we were doing this. Not that long, no. It was a nine-minute show. Yeah, right. Anyway, so I'm happy that we've done this.

And I met a bunch of our listeners at a BP event the other day, and it was great to meet everyone and hear their stories about when they listen to the show. And it's been fun. And we, we recently got enough positive reviews on iTunes to outweigh the early reviews that were like, I want to like the show, but these guys sound like they've been lobotomized. Uh, so now we are, we are five star podcast on iTunes,

which makes me question the wisdom of crowds. Well, I'm grateful. Even if you're snarky, I'm grateful. Yeah, I am too. Thank you, people. All right. So let's move on. The first question might be the last question because it's a very long question and we have actually engaged an attorney to answer it. So Jason Wojtkowski is with us, the great Jason Wojtkowski, and he's going to answer this. So the question is from

David, and he says, have you two obtained express written consent from Major League Baseball before discussing or writing about baseball games? Do you obtain written consent for each specific game you want to talk about or write about? Or have you asked for a blanket written consent to discuss and write about accounts of all baseball

games? Either way, I'd love for you to post on the website the signed permission slip from Bud Seelig. But hold on. Can Major League Baseball grant blanket written consent? That seems to be counter to their disclaimer that you'd need express written consent to talk about the account of a game. Or maybe I'm not entirely clear

what express means in this phrase. Does it mean quick? No, it probably means explicit or distinct. So I suppose MLB has some lawyer working full-time, devoting all of his time, granting all of the writers at Baseball Perspectives express written consent to discuss accounts of each individual game every day of the season and pre- and post-season. Also, if I wanted to ask you a question on this podcast about something I noticed in a baseball game, would you require me to show you written permission from MLB

about my authorized ability to describe the account of the game? If not, aren't you sort of encouraging all of us to flagrantly disregard MLB's mandate? I'm very concerned that pretty soon Bud Selig is going to start cracking down on this, and I want to make sure that my favorite podcasts and website are taking the necessary legal precautions to avoid some sort of 100-game suspension or whatever penalty Bud can impose. Jason, we've all heard the express written consent phrase thousands of times. It could probably, many of us, get close to reciting it by heart. It's one of the first, you know, it's really one of the first indoctrinations you get to the game is being told repeatedly that you have no rights to use the game.

And so we wanted to find out from you, because I've never thought about it before, how binding is the express written consent clause or disclaimer, I guess, in Major League Baseball games? Does it mean anything? Is it necessary? And should we actually be worried about our casual use of the accounts and descriptions of the games? No. All right. I'm pretty sure the answer to all of the things that you said was no, although not entirely sure.

Well, so let me ask you this. Maybe like one at a time. I mean, like the short version is that every content owner in the history of copyright has done everything they can within and outside the law to maximize the revenue that they can get from that content. And you hear about, or at least lawyers hear about, the Mickey Mouse copyright. I don't remember if that's exactly the phrase they use, but it is not in the usual way that we use Mickey Mouse copyright. I don't remember if that's exactly the phrase they use, but it is not in the usual way that we use Mickey Mouse, but it is literally because Disney has gone into court,

not gone into court, gone and lobbied Congress to get extensions on copyright every time Mickey Mouse is about to enter the public domain. So you've got, you know, it starts out at death of, or 40, I don't know, let's just say 50 years after creation, something passes into public domain. Disney doesn't like that. They go back, they get, you know, an extension.

Now it's like death plus 75 years. So of the creator. So it's basically forever and ever. And so baseball is not doing anything that, um, content owners and content creators have, creators have not – I've mixed myself up with negatives. But basically they're acting in the way that content owners always do and in this case going far beyond any normal or reasonable understanding of their rights under the copyright law by at the very least implying that you can't talk about the game without their permission. There's been a separate dispute about whether the stats are copyrighted, right? Because that's been an issue with fantasy leagues about whether... Yeah, I remember, I think the NBA actually got into some litigation there. And if I remember right, free culture people were not, you know, myself

included, although I don't follow it enough to really count myself in that same group, were not happy with the result. You know, I think, you know, knowing the way the courts treat copyright and knowing the way the courts think about these things, I'm sure the sports leagues have a pretty solid claim on the stats that are created. Although I might be misremembering, it might be my cynicism rather than my actual memory of the law speaking. So getting away for a second about what copyright protection they have, does the disclaimer itself have any relevance? I mean do their rights as copyright holders get stronger if they read this disclaimer? Is there any reason that I should be more worried because they keep telling me this or is the disclaimer itself completely irrelevant to their legal standing? The disclaimer is irrelevant to their legal standing? The disclaimer is irrelevant to their legal standing.

All it might do, and this is where my sort of weakness of really the nitty-gritty of copyright comes in, is you might get some, like you had knowledge of the fact that they owned this copyright and that you shouldn't have been copying and therefore you should have to pay not just for their damages, not just for the money they lost because you copied, but for some sort of punitive award as well, some sort of exemplary kind of money because know, money because it's money, basically, rather than money representing a loss to MLB. That's the only thing that I can think of, because in general, you know, one of the interesting features of copyright, for instance, is that you don't have to register to get copyright. People think you have to register

something with the copyright office in order to say that you have copyright. As soon as you write something down, you have copyright. You have the protections of the copyright law in that thing that you've created. And so this is another thing. You don't have to put in everything that you put out, don't copy this, in order to invoke the protection. You just – you created it. You own it. That's the essential – I mean I'm sure there's shading around that, but that's the essential regime of copyright.

What's sort of interesting is that I've always thought of this as being something that announcers read, but I feel like I've noticed more and more in recent years that this is something that is part of the broadcast that is played automatically as they're coming out of the ad, the ad time. And even if it is the broadcasters, it is 10 seconds, 15 seconds of broadcast real estate that they're committing to this that could be an ad. It seems like a lot, I mean, if you add it up cumulatively, it seems like a lot of money that they're that, you know, major league teams and broadcasts are are are forfeiting just to to read this disclaimer that it doesn't seem to have

that much relevance. I mean, even if MLB has, you know, a very strict interpretation, as they would, of their copyright ownership, you don't see them out there making – first off, you don't see their copyright being, I would say, explicitly abused very often. And you don't see them taking great pains to enforce it besides their relationship with YouTube and whatnot. It's hard to imagine how this disclaimer is a profitable disclaimer for them. Well, I would argue that their approach to YouTube is, I think you sort of put it to one side, but compare it to the way that the NBA has treated YouTube, and I think they have taken the strongest possible approach. Or compare it to how HBO has treated YouTube.

You can find – you could piece together the entire five seasons of The Wire from clips on HBO. I mean on YouTube. Yeah, my point – clearly they – right. They're much stricter with YouTube stuff. My point is simply that when they want to pull things off YouTube, they simply call YouTube and ask them to pull it off. It's not like the disclaimer is what's keeping things from YouTube. It's just that YouTube has a pretty lenient policy of reacting to copyright claims. question, I don't know, point that that raises is, in my memory at least, these things happen mid-inning often, rather than coming out of commercial. Batter strikes out, they trudge slowly back to the dugout, next batter comes in. That's plenty of time. And that, in my memory, is where the warning always happens, is in that time when the announcers would just be yammering on about, you know,

ice cream, cause it's the eighth inning of a seven to two game. And, and so Ray Fossey is, you know, getting hungry and he starts talking and instead you know, Glenn Kuyper has to read the warning. So, you know, yeah. Dippin dots lose free, free advertising, but so I'm not sure that at least in in the way that the broadcast work now i mean they that i guess bless mlb so far for not selling that time in between batters um or at least not overly selling that time in between batters i mean you still get your the weather report is always sponsored and this and that are always sponsored so to the to a certain

extent they're doing it. And therefore, theoretically, that 15 seconds could be sold. But I think they're probably not losing an entire, you know, an entire between innings ad. Do you think? Yeah, I know that the Dodgers do. Their radio is before like the start of the fourth inning or something, and it's coming out of the ad. So if possible, if everybody wants to, if you hear this disclaimer, let's say in the next three or four days, just shoot us an email and let us know what team's broadcast it was and when it was, if it was during ad time or if it was in between batters. Do you think it's more of a protection for some sort of live account competition?

some sort of live account competition? I mean, once the game is over, it's to baseball's benefit for us to talk about it and tell people what happened, especially for most of baseball history when you couldn't just go watch that game after it was over. So is it more of a protection for, say, if Sam and I decided that we wanted to do play-by-play all of a sudden and we just called a game and we streamed it online somehow and people decided to listen to that instead of the radio broadcast or something, then I would expect to get some sort of letter telling us to stop doing that probably.

Yeah, I think that's – this is another area that if I remember right, the NBA has litigated, which was in text alerts, I think. It was like Sprint or somebody would keep you up to date on the game, and they basically said, no, you have to buy a license to that data. You can't just watch the TV and input it into your system. You have to buy our data stream. And so, yeah, I think that is now it's that is that is they could shut down just, you know, a thousand sort of simulcasts, essentially, if people were to really dedicate themselves to this and get good enough, I don't know, hardware and connectivity to actually be able to call the game live, because that's hard. You know, you're going to have a little bit of a delay, potentially, you're going to be, everybody bit of a delay potentially. You're going to be, everybody's going to be in a different place listening to your webcast. So it'd be kind of

weird. But assuming you could figure it out, can MLB really stop you from describing in words the action that's going on? I don't know. It's not entirely clear to me that that is a valid use of the copyright. I mean, in particular, what if you're doing it from the park? Then I guess there's rules about they own the park. It's a private place. They can kick anybody out that they want to kick out. But in terms of exercising copyright, physical activity is not a thing that I think that that's, um, one thing they're concerned about. Um, it definitely raises a lot of questions about whether they're legally allowed to be concerned about them. Okay. Well, we probably won't be the, the ones to put that to the test, but if anyone comes after us for podcasting, would you represent us? Um, no. Uh, I think, I think it would be malpractice for me to represent you in a copyright case. Ben, as I recall, this is actually an idea that I remember people bringing up. I don't think it was BP people bringing it up.

There was, yeah, like a Sabre broadcast or something. Exactly, yeah. Yeah, I remember that. I've heard Ken and I talked about it on Productive Outs. They've talked about that. Uh-huh. On the Productive Outs, they've talked about that. Although theirs wouldn't be so much a saber as just like a goofing on people's faces, maybe. Yeah.

Like a mystery science theater kind of a thing, right? Right. Yeah. All right. Well, great. Thank you very much, Jason. I'm really glad that you explained that. I will never hear that quite the same. Yes.

Thank you. Sure. All right. We'll let you go. Go eat your pizza. I will do that. Thanks. Have a good rest of your podcast.

Thanks. Goodbye, Jason. Barely even an email. I mean, that was a legitimate 15-minute topic right there. Yes, right. All right. So next question is from David who asks – the last one. Wasn't the last one from David?

It's the same guy. Same David. It's the same guy. Double dipping. I'm looking. He is double dipping. Two good questions, David. Not good enough to get answered yesterday though.

All right. David asks this time, let's say you have the perfect pitcher he has an 80 fastball 80 control 80 command 80 curve 80 change up no flaws he's not superhuman he can't throw 150 mile per hour fastballs and his pitches do not break the laws of physics now let's say you have the perfect offensive player and then he goes through the exact same rules for an offensive player my question is what would the batting and pitching lines be for each player if they played a season worth of at-bats pitches against each other? Assume an adequate defense behind the pitcher.

So he has a hypothesis, but I want to hear what you think. So this is kind of that question about whether good pitching beats good hitting, right? It is. So we always hear that. This is why I ask, because I have always had a very strong opinion about this idea. And so it's a good time to talk about it. So that is exactly what it is. So what do you think?

My inclination is just kind of to think that it works both ways, that good hitting beats good pitching also. And good pitching beats good hitting sometimes. And I guess I would kind of expect it to just be sort of a league average line with these guys facing each other. So I think it's without question that good pitching does beat good hitting, and I'll tell you why I think that. Every level you go from T-ball up, offense goes down. If you look at eight-year-olds playing baseball, the score is going to be 30 to 23.

And if you look at college or high school, generally it's going to be higher. How much of that is defense though? Well – Because an eight-year-old can't catch the ball or throw it. Yeah, I think a lot of it is probably defense. But I think the main thing is that the big disadvantage that a pitcher has is that he has to act first, and he has to throw a strike. Now, of course, he can throw a pitch that's not in the strike zone and get a swing on it. But basically, he has to act first, and he has to perform his job.

And if he doesn't perform his job. And if he doesn't perform his job, then the hitter gets a pass. And the higher up you go, the more likely it is that the pitcher is going to be able to do what he wants to do and put the pressure on the hitter. So if you looked at the All-Star game yesterday, and you know, it was low scoring. And I would guess that most of the All-Star games over the past few years have been low scoring. I haven't looked that up. I might be pretty quickly disproven. But postseason, runs go way down in the postseason.

And part of that is that the back end of the rotation, the back end of the bullpen aren't being used. But I believe— Clayton Kershaw pitching in relief. Yeah, yeah. Well, I was talking about the postseason but um but i mean i believe that it's because um when you when you raise the standard for both hitting and pitching uh that you will always see offense go down and and also i think if i'm not mistaken that this is basically um this is what you see throughout history in major league baseball is that pitching gets the upper hand to the point where some change happens in baseball usually like expansion is a change and whenever you have expansion

offense always goes up at expansion because the the overall quality of play has gone down it's been spread out further right and so you have more players more hitters more pitchers and so offense goes up and then uh as you know the as as the league grows as the population grows as more players play um and as pitchers kind of get better and develop new things pitchers get the upper hand again it gets kind of out of hand and either things, pitchers get the upper hand again. It gets kind of out of hand, and either there's a rule change or there's some expansion or there's some outside force that usually brings the equilibrium back. But the cycle throughout history has always been that as the league gets better, unless an outside force acts, pitchers regain the upper hand. Unless an outside force acts, pitchers regain the upper hand. So shouldn't this be testable then if, like you know the log five method that you used in an article recently to figure out what the expected strikeout rate would be when high strikeout pitchers face high strikeout hitters?

And you can use that same formula to figure out the expected batting average or or whatever uh so you could then do that and and see whether hitters underperform that under that expected line when good pitchers are pitching that should be testable if you i i don't quite know enough about how the log5 method works i know how to implement it but i don't know enough about the the log five method works. I know how to implement it, but I don't know enough about the foundation of it to know whether this is actually perfectly statistically rigorous. Like, I don't know if this is a thing that is an estimate or if it is actually like mathematically sound.

So somebody smarter than me would tell me that. But yeah, it does seem like it should be. Okay, well, Russell Carlton, Dan Brooks, someone like that who's listening, maybe can email and tell us me that but yeah it does seem like it should be okay well russell carlton dan brooks uh someone like that who's listening maybe can email and tell us or maybe we can just do it and see what what happens sounds good um do you want it wait do you want to give a line the 80 hitter uh give me the batter's line for a year and and as oh so yeah i'll uh let me see if i can find it but uh david speculates that um that the that the hitter against the league average might hit something like 425 625 825

but having 600 plate appearances against the perfect pitcher is going to temper those so let's say this hitter is a 425 625 825 hitter although i think that if you were hitting that you probably would have a higher slugging percentage but anyway uh let's say he's that hitter uh against the equivalent pitcher where where do you think he is and the league average these days is something like uh 720 or something ops uh geez um and he is facing a guy who, just to be clear, is the equivalent of a 425, 625, 825 hitter. Yeah, so I guess if I'm sticking with my original hypothesis that good pitching doesn't really beat good hitting, then I have to say it's just a league average line, right? All right.

I will say lower than link average i'll say something like uh 235 uh 280 um 420 i'm gonna say the power is mostly still there uh and we should be able to log five even that right if we assigned if we assigned equivalent pitcher and hitter stats we could even log five that and find out what log five says yeah sure okay all right did you by chance find a hitter stats we could even log five that and find out what log five says yeah sure okay all right did you by chance find a hitter pitcher matchup can i ask this yes you can ask that all right so uh paul says your ray durham mariano rivera discussion about ray durham being um uh over 28 without having ever reached base against mariano rivera made me think about my favorite hitter batter matchatter matchup,

Johan Santana versus Johnny Peralta. Peralta hasn't gone hitless against him, but he is 4 for 30 with 22 Ks. That's an exciting line. I always think of this matchup whenever it is said that we should ignore these kind of matchups due to small sample sizes over several years, etc. But clearly Peralta has no chance against Johan, right? I wanted to ask you we'll get to that but I wanted to ask you if you have a favorite hitter pitcher matchup

yeah uh I like ones that that take on a life of their own kind of and become so well known that that one player performs better than usual against the other, that it then starts to, it starts to affect, uh, lineup decisions and start sit decisions. And it just, it kind of takes on this whole mystique. So, uh, my favorite one I think is Enrique Wilson versus Pedro Martinez, um, which, which about 10 years ago, uh, in New York was, was a well-known thing that Enrique Wilson, I don't know, I guess an average-ish sort of utility player, owned Pedro Martinez. And it became so well-known to the point that he would be like a Pedro Martinez specialist. Like Joe Torre would plug him into the lineup when the Yankees faced Boston to get Enrique Wilson's summit bats against Pedro Martinez.

And it was great because Pedro was, of course, at the peak of his powers as possibly the best pitcher ever. And the idea that anyone really could have his number at the time seemed sort of far-fetched. And the idea that if anyone did, it would be Enrique Wilson, of all people, was just great. And so Enrique— He faced—can I tell—okay, go ahead.

If you don't say this, I will say it. So go ahead. So Enrique Wilson, in the regular regular season faced Pedro Martinez 27 times, and he went 11 for 25 with the walk, and I don't know where the other plate appearance went. Sacrifice bunt. Okay. So, yeah, so that's 440, 462, 600. And then in the post season, he wasn't so great. So if you if you

combine regular season and post season, then it's 12 for 33. And but it was just it's so like, I googled quickly just to look for some stories from the time. And there was a New York Times story from October 11th, 2003. So Enrique Wilson says, now everybody is talking about it. And there's some people ticked off in the Dominican because I always hit Pedro. They love Pedro over there in the Dominican. I don't think there's anyone who wants me to get a hit. Some of them hate me.

And apparently he was wary about wandering the Dominican. I don't think there's anyone who wants me to get a hit. Some of them hate me. And apparently he was wary about wandering the streets. I was going to make a joke about that. I feel bad making that joke. And he was Dominican. So Dominicans hated Enrique Wilson for hitting well against another Dominican pitcher. And there was just kind of this whole playful back and forth for a while where when he would get a hit off Pedro, Pedro would like laugh and smile about it. And Grady Little called it a freak of nature. And he said they had discussed an approach for suppressing Wilson. And it was just kind of this whole fun back and forth, except like clearly Jotori seemed to actually believe there was something to this cause he would, he would start him.

Uh, and Jorge Posada called him our little secret weapon against Pedro and all this ridiculous stuff. Uh, so, and, and the, I was looking at a story from August of 2003 about this history. And then in the postseason of 2003, after that was written, Wilson went one for seven against him. And then in 2004, went one for five against him. So it didn't really last, shockingly. But it was fun.

Well, it did. but it was it was fun while it did yeah he uh he actually has twice as many played appearances against Pedro than against any other pitcher in the world and partly that's because of the you know the the division but I mean it really does there is indication that they were really doing all they could yeah to get him could to get him plate appearances. Now, he had one walk in 35 plate appearances, so he's clearly not walking, and he's had a 120 isolated power all on doubles. So there wasn't that. And so you probably would say, you know, Babiff fluke,

but he did only strike out three times in 35 plate appearances against Pedro, which is probably, I mean, for players who had anywhere near that amount of plate appearances against Pedro. If it's not the top, it's near the top. I mean, I could sort of see why somebody might get, you know, fooled. He puts the bat on the ball. What else do you? I mean, against Pedro, a guy who puts the bat on the ball is kind of your best option. There's not a lot you're going to do besides that. Yeah.

I know he's got confidence in me when Pedro's on the mound, Wilson said of Torrey. He knows I can hit this guy and I can hit this guy. This guy, I can hit him. He knows I can hit this guy and I can help the team to win every time he pitches. Wow. That's my favorite. Yeah. Well, my favorite is Sergio Romo against Ricky Weeks

and I every couple weeks uh I think oh I gotta check to see if the Giants are playing the Brewers because when they play the Brewers I'm definitely doing like a gif retrospective of this but um Sergio Romo has faced Ricky Weeks um six times and he struck out all six times all of them swinging half of them on three pitches and so these six plate appearances have taken 22 22 pitches and 19 have been sliders and 10 of those 19 have been swinging strikes and weeks has not yet touched a ball so 22 pitches and weeks has not fouled a pitch off and you should see the gifts i mean like when when they're coming you will want to see them they are incredible you have never seen a batter look so bad. I did a whole post once on batters swinging at sliders from Sergio Romo that were like two feet outside. I don't remember whether Weeks was one of them. Weeks might have been all of them.

I basically agree with Paul that it's impossible to have watched these plate appearances and not conclude that Ricky Weeks has no chance against Romo. But I know that there's a lot of false positives in these sorts of things and that probably Ricky Weeks will homer his next time up. Just as soon as you think you've noticed something. Just as soon as Joe Torre or whoever it was noticed that Enrique Wilson hits Pedro Martinez, he stopped. He got terrible in the postseason.

All right, last question is a quick one, and you might sit this one out, but it's from John who says, I'm the proud father of a two-month-old girl. I love her to death, but I haven't been to a game yet this year, and I'm missing live baseball like crazy. At what age is it acceptable,

appropriate, advisable to take a child to a professional baseball game? John and I have gone back and forth a little on this, because I haven't taken my child to a baseball game. She's a little older than two, because she would hate it. I mean, she wouldn't hate it, but she

wouldn't care for it. And, you know, after about 12 minutes, she would hate it. I mean, she wouldn't hate it, but she wouldn't care for it. And after about 12 minutes, she would start to get bored. And the thing about it is that it's not just that she doesn't know the rules of baseball. It's that she doesn't know the premise of competition. It just would not register anything in her mind. She doesn't know competition. So as far as having any sort of meaningful experience, my parents didn't take me to a ballgame until I was six. And I didn't follow baseball until I was

six. I didn't collect cards until I was six. And seven is the year I really geared up and started listening to every game and knowing the players. My guess is that maybe I would have handled five. I probably wouldn't go earlier than that if you expect them to get anything out of it. But John's question is more along the lines of appropriateness. Right. Etiquette. Yeah. Treating a ballgame almost like, you know, would you take a two-year-old to a movie? You know, there's like a two-week sweet spot where you can take a kid to a movie. But otherwise, basically, you know, you wouldn't.

But people do. Many people do. People do. To like the 11 o'clock showing of Iron Man 3, by the way. Yes. Like three weeks ago. Yeah, yeah. Golly. Anyway, I took my – we took our three-month-old to a movie, and it was amazing. She slept through the entire thing.

But like a week earlier, it wouldn't have worked, and a week later, it wouldn't have worked. We found the sweet spot. Anyway, the point is that I don't think that there is any restriction on when you can take a child to a baseball game uh john will learn this but out there is a huge difference between outdoor and indoor right there is almost no place that's inappropriate to take a child outdoors uh the sound gets dispersed uh in such a different fashion that it really can't possibly be as disruptive as it is indoors. And ballparks, people move around a lot. Nobody's going to expect you to even sit there for three hours.

So if you're walking around a lot, if you're going out to the concourse and walking, if you're going to different parts of the park, it would be really super-duper easy to take a kid. I think a newborn would be fine. I think a three-year-old would be fine. I think a two-month-old would be really super-duper easy to take a kid. I think a newborn would be fine. I think a three-year-old would be fine. I think a two-month-old would be fine. There is no age at which I think anybody would hold it against you, so long as you're willing to leave your seat for a few innings and walk around. Yeah, I completely agree. I've seen so many babies in places where babies had no business being, it seemed to me.

But ballparks are not one of them. That wouldn't bother me at all. You could go walk around the concourse or I can go walk around the concourse and your baby won't bother me. And, John, you're likely to never be on camera at a baseball game. They're never going to – I mean I'm looking at a picture of you, John. You're a fine-looking man because you emailed on Gmail so I can see your picture. But the camera is not seeking out you to show you on camera. You bring a two-month-old, you're going to get on TV.

Right, and you could be in one of those legendary GIFs where a foul ball comes and you drop your baby so you can catch it or something. And you'll end up on Deadspin. So that's the show. Yeah. We'll be back tomorrow. That's year one. Year one. Year one.

Well, now we're on year two. Yeah, okay. This is year two. Yesterday was the end of year one. So that's – here we are, year two. If we were Will Leach, we might be starting to call this season two. Right. Okay.

Then we'll be back with one more show tomorrow. Go tweet at G Jaffe and tell him what you're drinking. Well, I'll put it on untapped and he can see it. He follows me. Wait, what? Hang on. What? There's like a beer Twitter?

Yeah, yeah. Well, it's beer. It's more like, I would call it like Beer Goodreads or Beer Foursquare. Beer Pinterest? Beer, nah, it's not really Pinterest-y. It really is. It's a check-in service. So, I'm sure you've seen people tweet the links.

There, I just did one, so now you can see it. Well, I can't because I just unfollowed you. That's sort of rude