Effectively Wild: A FanGraphs Baseball Podcast - Effectively Wild Episode 2498: MLB’s Bully Pulpit

Episode Date: July 1, 2026

Ben Lindbergh and Meg Rowley banter about the firing of Perry Minasian and the Angels’ outlook under John Mozeliak, Molly Jolly, and Arte Moreno, how MLB is using official channels to publicly promote its position in labor bargaining, whether the Mets’ disappointing season will influence other teams’ approaches to roster construction, the popularity (or lack thereof) of Josh Naylor, Jacob Misiorowski and the imprecise nature of pitch-speed records, and the delightful debut of the Diamondbacks’ Mitch Bratt, plus a postscript about MLB’s ball-drag statement. Audio intro: Alex Ferrin, “Effectively Wild Theme” Audio outro: Beatwriter, “Effectively Wild Theme” Link to Blum on Minasian Link to Blum on Minasian 2 Link to Dubuque on Minasian Link to Rosenthal on Mozeliak Link to Nightengale’s Angels report Link to Jolly article Link to MLB labor videos Link to MLB Instagram labor post Link to Ozempic ad 1 Link to Ozempic ad 2 Link to MLB.com column 1 Link to MLB.com column 2 Link to Baumann on draft prospect opinions Link to bully pulpit wiki Link to 2026 Mets clubhouse story Link to 2025 Mets clubhouse story Link to 2023 Mets clubhouse story Link to Stearns clip Link to Meisel on Naylor Link to Hedges clip Link to Garrett comment Link to Naylor on Pawol Link to Miz 105.5 mph story Link to Miz postgame comment Link to Miz postgame clip Link to 105+ MPH pitches Link to 107+ perceived MPH pitches Link to Pitch Info website Link to Chapman max MPH at BB Link to Hicks max MPH at BB Link to Joyce max MPH at BB Link to Miz max MPH at BB Link to PITCHf/x calibration article 1 Link to PITCHf/x calibration article 2 Link to PITCHf/x calibration article 3 Link to PITCHf/x calibration article 4 Link to PITCHf/x calibration article 5 Link to Bratt delivery 1 Link to Bratt delivery 2 Link to Bratt last year Link to Walden/Capps story Link to Seinfeld clip Link to Bratt extension rank Link to “fall on my ass” tweet Link to Savant drag dashboard Link to MLB statement to Ben Link to Acuña comparing balls Link to MLB trademark application  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

and welcome to episode 2498 of Effectively Wild, a VanGraphs Baseball podcast brought to you by our Patreon supporters. I'm Meg Raleigh of Phanagraphs, and I'm joined by Ben Lemberg of the Ringer. Ben, how are you? Doing all right. Still employed, which is good. And not something I can say about Perry Manassian, who is no longer the GM of the Angels.

Yeah. I had a firing to discuss last time with Ben Clemens. We talked about the Mendoza firing and the Mets. And then Perry Menazian met his end as Angels GM. And John Mosealak, of all people, has replaced him at least on an interim basis. And we'll be taking over day-to-day GMing and leading the search for a new GM, which will probably not culminate in hiring himself. But he didn't entirely rule out that possibility. So like the Mets dismissing Mendoza, this is not really a case where he's.

I was floored by this firing that I thought, him? How? Why? He's blameless in all of this. But also very much like the Mendoza firing, it's a case where you can't say problem solved. And now they're fixed and they'll be better either because they remain the angels. And they are still owned by Artie Moreno. And that is probably the root of the problem. Yeah. And unlike the meth situation where, you know, you know, there were, there are definitely aspects of their roster construction that I think, some of which seemed flawed to us in the moment and some of which have sort of revealed themselves to be a problem in hindsight. There's good stuff in Queens, right? I mean, like the food.

Oh, yeah. I agree with. No, but like there's, there's, I think a lot about that organization to suggest that even if there needs to be a period of repair to the big league roster, That is possible and a window of contention can be viewed to be not super, super far off, right? Might come as really as next year. Whereas the angels are rudderless, in my opinion, and the problems in that org are so pervasive that even if we were to take the morano of it all out of the equation and just concentrate on the state of the org as it. it is, I think the idea that they are going to be like a truly good and contending concern is hard to imagine, let alone that they might aspire to be like a model franchise or anything like that. And then, of course, there is the Moreno of it all, which further impedes the

efforts to modernize and sort of advance the interests of the club. So it's a, it's a, it's a real sticky wicket. I find it interesting that we keep getting these and keep getting as overstating the case because, you know, like how many of them have there been? Well, well, two in back-to-back summers. These GM dismissals like so proximate to the draft. And, you know, we talked in the case of the nationals when that happened last year, like how obviously the GM isn't making that decision on his own. There's a whole assemblage of people and departments that are involved with it. but it is interesting to, like, be like,

oh, I want to drive on like two weeks. So sorry, Barry. And, you know, the situation a little, a little different in any number of ways. But all of that's to say, on the one hand, wow, big move. On the other hand, Shrug? Like, and I don't want to be dismissive of Perry as like a baseball person. And obviously, he, you know, he's a human being. he just lost his job. That sucks. But also, I mean, come on, man. Surely, he had to feel like

he was on borrowed time, right? Yeah. And I think back in February, Moreno said, I really like Perry. At the end of the day, you have to start adding up wins and losses. And so I guess this is the end of the day. And that's, of course, Moreno, who also said that winning was not the top priority for Angels fans, that it was all about affordability for them. But that is not the, you know, the most full-throated endorsement that he offered at the time. So that's the dreaded vote of confidence. He is gone. Now it's just meet the new boss, literally the same as the old boss, you know, meet the same Moreno.

And I don't know that anything will change. Now, I don't want to say that the GM is completely interchangeable, that it just doesn't matter one wit as long as Moreno is there. Because I think it still might make a difference. And you could say that Menez's hands were tied in some respects, and maybe Moreno didn't allow him to bid for certain guys or maybe put his thumb on the scale and went after certain guys. Or there was a lot of reporting about Moreno wanting to hold on to everyone at the deadline this year. And there was some suggestion that maybe that was the final break between Menezian and Moreno here. But that doesn't really make much sense. If you're the angels right now and you have.

anyone who might be appealing to other teams, then why would you not be dangling those guys? It just, you're out of it. You have one of the worst, if not the worst records in Major League Baseball. Again, why would you not? If someone wants to trade for whomever, Jose Soriano or someone, then, yeah, get what you can get, I guess, right? And so there was some suggestion that Moreno did not want that, that he wants to hang on to his guys. And that would be quite frustrating if you have perennially had one of the worst farm systems in baseball, if not the worst. And it's almost impressive that they have managed to do that for so long.

That it's just year after year after year. And it almost doesn't matter which source you're looking at. The angels are going to be probably bottom five. And meanwhile, they've been bad at the big league level too, which you would think normally that would afford you better draft picks. and at least you could focus on your system, and that just has not paid dividends for them. And then there's the whole trait of promoting players extremely aggressively, which has not broken everybody,

but seems as if it has misfired for some at least, and it certainly doesn't seem to have helped. It's not as if they managed to rush a bunch of big league ready guys to the majors. So I don't know how much that was Manassian, and it's hard to know how much the drafting is Manassian specifically. And then the free agent spending, because the angels, they're not at the bottom when it comes to payroll. They will still spend, even if they don't typically go after the big ticket guy these days. And they were burnt by doing that for years and consistently picked the wrong players predating Manassian.

But even during Manassian's tenure and Patrick Dubuque ran down his record of free agent signings at baseball prospectus, and it is pretty bleak. If you look at all the contracts that were handed out by the Angels under Manassian that were for 10 million or more, it's just, it's a bunch of just zeros, really, in terms of what they got back. And Patrick summed it up. Dollars per War analysis is pretty worn out these days, but generally speaking, $298 million should be able to buy you more than four wins. So that's, if you add up all the warp of all the guys they signed for those big-ish contracts, that's what they got for winds above replacement. Or to state things even more bleakly, Patrick says,

Manassian's 11 biggest contracts wound up costing 50 million more than Anthony Rendon and producing less warp. That's actually kind of hard to do. Yeah. Yeah. And it's just, there's no success really here. You say Kikuchi is the guy who has been the most productive for them among these big dollar signings.

And then name after name after name, it's just like replacement level, replacement level, or within a win or two in either direction. So if you assume that Moreno set the budget and gave Menezzi in a little latitude, at least a little bit when it came to here, the specific free agents you're allowed to sign, and sure he's hamstringing him by saying you can't go after the elite guys, maybe. And also, did the elite guys even want to sign there, given the Angel's track record of not making the playoffs forever, being bad and also not being great at development and everything. But among the guys that he did sign, there are very few successes.

So I think you can hold that against him to some extent. Yeah. I mean, I think that it would be ridiculous to assume that this mess is one of one man's making. But that one man had a lot of, a lot of say in picking the ingredients for that mess. It's a soup of a mess. It's a, they're in, they have a soup. It's a toxic bad, it's a bad soup. Yeah.

And I like a lot of soups. I'm a big soup fan. You're a big soup guy. Yeah. And I would not sip this soup. Angel soup would be bitter indeed. So I, you know, I think that, again, it would be too much to say that this is all Manassian's fault. But it would also be ridiculous to imagine that he couldn't have tried to do.

do better because they, it's not like they have never had resources at their disposal. When they are misapplied so dramatically, you do have to level blame somewhere. Yeah, and they had that all-pitchers draft, which hasn't really paid many dividends. And he was not particularly accountable when he would be asked often by Sam Blum to evaluate his own performance. Yo's always kind of dancing around, holding himself accountable. Maybe, again, his hands were tied sometimes. But yeah, if you say, while they had this much money allocated to spend on free agents, they really could not have set that money on fire any more than they did.

It would be hard to get fewer returns. So that I think you can hold against him. And then it is interesting because Moseilac comes in and he's a respect. basketball executive, but it's funny that he's the guy. Now, he's been with the Cardinals for 30 years or so and was leading their baseball ups for the last 18 of them. Right. But he got phased out there.

Right. Why did he get let go? Yes. And so he was supplanted. Heinblum came in. It was a handover of power. And part of that, and obviously the Cardinals were quite successful for most of Mosellax tenure there, but they were perceived to have fallen behind the curve when it came to player development

and to have underinvested in that side of things, as the angels have. And that's certainly Moreno's fault to a large extent, I think. But whether it was the size of the investments or just the efficiency of them, the Cardinals' player development, acumen really fell by the wayside, and they brought in Bloom to revamp that whole system. And that seems to be paying off already. and obviously a lot of those guys are products of Mosellec's tenure too. So I'd say probably upgrade in terms of reputation,

but also it is kind of of a piece with the Angels tendency, as we chronicled recently, to pick up players who have seen better days or have it's been a while since they were at their peak performance. Ah, I did it. So Mosellac is almost the equivalent of that, you know, just, The Angels, not dumpster diving, I wouldn't go so far as to say that about Mosellec, but just someone who is, you know, maybe passed by a bit. And maybe it's still an improvement for the Angels, but his own organization concluded that

maybe he's not on the cutting edge anymore. Maybe we need to bring in someone else. And that's when the angels say, ah, time to strike while the iron is cold. Yeah. And I think that there's like an intro, we're never going to get a totally candid answer. to this, but there is like an interesting push and pull to that dynamic which is like, are you truly

hamstrung in your ability to attract talent to that top spot? Or is this your preference, right? If you could pluck any executive that you wanted, would this be the guy?

Now, he isn't necessarily going to be the guy in perpetuity. And so perhaps we shouldn't, you know, over index on his involvement in the search for the next person who runs the angels. But it is

interesting that they seem to be sort of in this rut. There are only so many of these jobs, you know, and we have talked before about the relative attractiveness of some positions versus others, and I don't want to say that like if you're a young

and aspiring baseball executive that you would view an opportunity with the Dodgers the same way you'd view one with the Rockies, the same way you'd view one with the Brewers, right? Like, each of these teams has their pros and cons, and there are going to be people who view different orgs as a better fit for a variety of reasons. It might be idiosyncratic to their personhood. But also, there are only so many of them, right? There are only so many of these positions where you get to say, I'm the pobo, right? I'm the big man in charge. And so you would think that the scarcity would

do enough work for you that you would be able to go out and find, you know, the best, brightest young person to bring in. I do think that, you know, to the extent that this is perhaps indicative of a recruitment problem. And again, I don't want to overstate the case because we just don't know what the split is here. And never count out Artie Marino having weird preferences that are out of step with the rest of the industry. But I do think that this is one of the places where you have the potential for the angel's reputation within baseball to be working against them. And it isn't good. You know, they did not treat their people well during the pandemic.

They furloughed a bunch of folks. They didn't bring them back. Is that going to prevent someone who just really wants to be a GM from saying, eh, I can do better? And weirdly, you do have a lot of job security in that org, it seems, at least at the uppermost levels. you know, Perry was there for a while. So maybe it doesn't matter, but I just, you know, these things do come around to you eventually.

I think you should treat your employees and colleagues well. I say colleagues as if, you know, I think that Perry did the opposite of that, and that's not what I mean. But like, you should treat your people well because you should treat people well. But if that is not a compelling enough reason, you should treat people well strategically. It's not quite the same, but I will take it. given the alternatives. So, I don't know, it's going to be interesting to see where they end up. I think there is something to the idea of, like, you make these moves early.

I mean, it's late in a chronology of the angels, right? But early in the course of the season, so that as people are looking ahead to their next opportunity, they are aware of a vacancy, right, or a potential vacancy. Assuming the Mosaic doesn't just end up in that seat, which, again, is a possibility. Yeah, I don't know that he wants that job long term, but it is hard to give that up when you've had it for a long time. And if he finds that maybe other candidates aren't so interested, well, he might just settle on himself. But we'll see. He said for now he's not cleaning house that there will be obviously change at some point, but he's keeping on the various lieutenants.

He's keeping Kurt Suzuki through the duration of his one-year deal. bad news for my bold prediction that one of the new managers would not make it through their first season. Tony V is still out there, I guess. Also, like, it is only June 30th. It's true. You got time on that one. Your clock has not expired. Yeah.

And what is interesting is, and by the way, it was Bob Nightingale who reported that the angels are not trading or plan on keeping various guys who might be of interest to other teams because Moreno doesn't want to deal them. So take that for what it's worth, but it would be consistent with Bruno's behavior in the past. But, yeah, if you have, look, I don't know how teams are going to be lining up to trade for Joe Adele necessarily. But Jose Soriano, read Detmer's? Why would you not? I mean, I've liked me Detmer's for a long time. And it's great that he's finally making good on the promise. And he's still not even quite 27.

And he has a couple more years of team control after this, as does Soriano. If you have those guys, solid starters, you. Yeah, that's exactly the sort of player you should be trying to make the most of because he's had injury problems. He's been inconsistent. You've got a guy who's had a great first half and you can trade him while his value is at its highest and do something to try to jumpstart your system. That's what you should be doing. Go do that. Yeah.

What is interesting, though, is that Moselleck said that he didn't even talk to Artie Moreno as part of his recruitment slash hiring process. Yeah, he said he didn't even talk to Artie. Isn't his role consultant? He communicated exclusively with team president, the delightfully named Molly Jolly. Molly Jolly. And they were connected, I guess, by a mutual friend, an agent. And so Jolly was the one. Him and Molly Jolly.

Yes. I'm just looking for excuses to say Molly Jolly. Oh, please, as often as you like. Molly Jolly's the merrier. And so Jolly was the one who, fired Perry and evidently Mo just signed on here without even talking to Moreno, which is kind of incredible because that's your, yeah, and maybe he reports to Molly Jolly, but also ultimately he reports to Moreno and usually you're going to be in pretty close conversation.

Yeah, so I don't know if it was like part of the pitch was, hey, you don't have to talk to Arty, including even now to get hired, you don't have to talk to him. I will insulate you from already entirely. Maybe that was part of the appeal. I don't know. But I don't think so because Mosellec said that he's going to be making sure that Moreno understands what our direction is. So he said, Mr. Moreno is the owner and my job is to have a healthy relationship with him. I think the short-term focus for me is what's that communication line look like. Evidently, there wasn't one before the hiring, and making sure he understands what our direction is. And I'm looking forward to that. So he's kind of coming in and he's like, hey, I'm going to try to make it.

clear to Artie where we are and what is happening with this organization. And he also said, in regard to Moreno, I have not met him, but I can tell you this. I know, it's really something. What? I know. I have not met him, but I can tell you this. He does care. He does want to win. And then he said he probably is a little too much of a fan than not. That's a hard thing. Yeah. Which, boy, he's not going to last long in this position if he's criticizing Artie through the press. But that's interesting that he said that, and maybe that backs up the reporting. If Artie's like, we can't deal these guys who are good because our fans will be upset or something, well, you have to take the longer of you. And as Ms. Alec said, sometimes on the business side

of this game, we have to make decisions that aren't fun to make. So it sounds like even if he is not actually talking to Moreno, he is talking to him through these public comments, and he's making it kind of clear that he's going to come in and try to deliver some unfarnished hard truths here. That is so bonkers. I don't know what to say about it. Isn't his job to advise at least the organization on like finding a new pobo? Isn't that his understood responsibility? Yep. But, okay. But here's a follow-up question. And you're going to say, hey, that's a silly question to ask.

But I'm going to invite you to consider whether or not it is. Does Artie Moreno know that John Mazzalak works for him? Do we know for sure that Argy knows that Mosellac is part of the organization? Does he know if he has questions about like the Pohar search that he should call John? Does he know like, oh, you know. Oh, it's so lucky. I had all these questions about our Pobo search, but good news, we got John for that. Does he know that that's the answer to the question of who do we have for that?

Maybe they're going to be doing a weekend at Bernie's kind of, I mean, Perry's not dead, but maybe Molly Jolly is going to just pretend that Perry's still around. Do you think that they, look, I don't want to insult Molly Jolly, because Molly Jolly is one of the most senior women in affiliated ball. So I'm not trying to insult Molly Jolly. But do you think that like some small, small, again, not insulting or impuging her bona fides, do you think some small percentage of her appeal to Artie was like, no one can get mad at a woman named Molly Jolly. Her name is literally Molly Jolly. Do you think that that fact is? It's very Disney coded kind of. It's so Disney coded. I wonder if you were to reinforce that ops group with whatever data scientists are currently working for. Disney. And you know they have an army of them, right? Just like a whole army of like data scientists who are figuring out how how much they can charge you to skip a line for a ride. Lightning Lane, sorry,

it's Lightning Lane now, not Fast Pass. What is the differential that we can charge where you still feel like the Star Wars ride is worth it, whether you're waiting in line or paying for Lightning Lane. And I'm here to tell you they have found that sweet spot, which is bananas. You don't have to go into another extended riff on my experience at Disneyland last year,

which I think about at least once a week because it was magical. But if they were to reinforce the ops group with a couple of the data scientists from Disney,

plus or minus five ones? How many? Like, what's our over, under on that? I don't want to seed conspiracy theories. We are in a conspiratorial age in a way that is obviously bad.

But Ben, I am going to operate under the assumption that Artie Marino has no idea that John de Zalek is working for him until I see affirmative evidence that they are, that Artie is aware of his existence. Yeah. That's what I need. Artie doesn't talk to the press that often. So we might have to wait a bit to hear confirmation.

But it might be for the best if they're keeping him so out of the loop that he doesn't actually know who's running the show. And he can just keep texting Perry to tell him what to do. And Perry will be like, I don't work for you anymore. and then meanwhile, Molly Chali and Moseilac and just do their thing. Do you think that Perry would be like, look, I'm just going to let him keep texting me and then I'm going to like send them a bill at the end. That's like, yeah, you want to know what a consultant looks like?

I got the text messages to prove it. That's, he didn't talk. But like, okay, I'm sorry. I'm making more of this than probably matters. And I hear myself, I want everyone to know. But that is, well, it's just very angels, I guess is really what it is. At the end of the day, that is some deeply angels-coded stuff right there. Although it's also the opposite of angels because the rep for Moreno is that he's meddling and he's tampering and he's telling the team what to do.

And so if he's not even talking to the new hire, maybe that's a good sign. It's a shocking. It is. It's a shocking thing to hear. It's just it is, it is bonkers, you know. I'm sure they'll catch up eventually. Are you? They can hop on a Zoom or something.

Oh, my God. I did say that he has various messages that he wants to convey to Moreno, but maybe he can do that through the Molly intermediary. I don't know. The Jolly. The Jolly intermediary. Yes. Molly Jolly. Do you think Molly Jolly's parents were like at all trepidacious about naming her Molly?

I don't even know if Molly is her maiden name or if it is a, a married name. I don't know. I don't know. You know what? Here's the thing. I don't know anything about Molly Jolly other than the Molly and the Jolly part. I mean, that's not true.

But like I don't know anything about her personally. So Molly, but Ben, Ben, can we just one more time? Can we just Molly Jolly? Molly Jolly. It is her name. Her name is Molly Taylor Jolly. Right. I know it's her name.

But yes, is it her maiden name? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That I'm not sure. Because like if you. I think not.

actually because her husband is Bert Jolly. Is Bert Jolly? Bert Jolly. Bert Jolly. Miss Sesame Street-ass family. I tell you what. Bert Jolly? I'm sorry, that's the name.

She's married to a Muppet. That is the name of a Muppet. That's a Muppet name. Bert is the grumpy one. So, but that makes it funnier that he would be Burt Jolly? Is it Bert with an ear or you? It's with a. you. Okay, so different than

Bert from Bert and Ernie. Is it is Bert, sorry, we're going to be done with this, I swear, but like, what, you know, what is there to talk about? I can't get mad about the All-Star stuff again. Like, I don't have any, I got no more juice for All-Star selections. Congratulations. I, I'm sorry that happened to you, whichever it is.

Sorry, is Bert short for something? Is it like short for, like, Bertholomew? Bertholomew. Bert Tholomey. It could be short for Burton or Or maybe a Herbert or Albert or Oh, Herbert. Bertram.

Bertram. Okay. Okay. I think that Bert Tholomew should be a name. Brut Tholomew. I like it. And I realize that I am both emphasizing the T and Bert and then relying on it for the Follamue in a way that doesn't work.

Yeah. Because then it would be like, Bert, Tholomew. Like two T's. Bert Jolly. She was originally Molly Taylor, I think. Molly Taylor, okay. She chose to be Molly Jolly. So she must really loved Bert.

Sure, she chose to be Molly Jolly. And we, you know, like, that is a whole conversation that I don't really have any interest in litigating. People should do what feels right to them. I'm just saying that like the calculus, if you are a woman who's going to take your husband's name, that's a particular calculus. If you are a parent who looks at your fresh, beautiful baby girl and goes, we should have her be Molly Jolly her whole life, that's a very different set of decisions that you're making, right? I'm not saying they're bad decisions. Again, a Burt Jolly exists. And that's so funny.

That's just so funny. But it's just, it's a different calculus than being like, yeah, this is like my way of making a family with this person. I'm going to take his name or whatever. Like whatever your decision tree is on that. Well, hopefully Angels fans will feel more jolly going forward because, yeah, it can't get much worse. It's just it's only gotten worse at the big league level. And Moselleck said that very delicately. Obviously, they lacked consistency in terms of winning, is what he said about the Angels prior to his tenure.

Lacked consistency in terms of winning. That is a charitable way to put it. So he said, that's the proxy. A lot of things can be used to. determine if an organization is healthy or not. I think for me, where Molly and I are connecting is that we understand wins and losses matter, which, you know, that's a pretty low bar to clear for a baseball operations leader, understanding wins and losses matter.

But I guess it is an important thing to clarify for the angels. And back in May, Manassian promised that the angels' best baseball was ahead of them. And if you take the long view, that's probably true. I mean, you know, unless we're going back to 2002 or something, he was probably be talking about this season specifically. Yeah. We'll see if that's the case. But I do think they will have better baseball, but it will be without perimenazin.

So good luck to the Angels and to Molly Jolly and to Mosaic. And hopefully he and already will have a chat someday. Okay. What do you make of the fact that MLB is using its bully pulpit to advance its position in the bargaining, because this is more than I can remember it happening in the past, and maybe I'm misremembering. But I don't recall it being such a full court press, PR-wise, where MLB was just disseminating with express written consent its position in the labor battle

and very explicitly just through its various social media channels. And also on MLB TV commercial. breaks. They have made videos. You can go to MLB.com slash level the playing field slash videos. And you can see these one or two minute videos that they've come up with, which is sort of, you know, quoting man on the street, just or fan on the street, talking about how we need to level the playing field and we need a salary cap because of the payroll disparities and everything. And these are on pretty heavy rotation during commercial breaks while you're watching games. And I guess, I guess, in a sense that's not surprising that MLB is using its bully pulpit using its channels to promote its point of view and try to get the public on its sides.

But I don't really remember it being so pervasive and so explicit in past rounds of negotiation. So there's something a little bit gosh about it, you know. I mean, it's it's state media in a sense. And so it's not shocking to see. but it is more heavy-handed than I can recall. I want to think about how I want to answer this question in a way that is both politic but direct. Because it's, you know, you get into this uncomfortable reality

where those words don't write themselves, right? And so you end up having to talk about people, you know, a little bit in their editorial choices. I will say that during the last CBA negotiation, over the course of the lockout, the league felt very free to make use of the national writers at MLB.com in explaining their understanding of the negotiation

and trying to advance a particular narrative of the goals of the CBA negotiation, the priorities of ownership, et cetera. And so in some ways, this is just a continuation of that, albeit with visuals and now some folks who, as far as I know, are working on freelance basis. So there's that. I continue to find it a little mystifying, not that they would do it. Of course they would do it.

They own the network. They own.com. And on some level, I guess, like, they have a right to express themselves publicly and try to explain what they think that they're trying to achieve, even if I think they are lying about their motivations, or at the very least, not expressing them in a way that offers a full accounting of facts to the reader. But it is surprising to me because the fans aren't at the table. You know, ultimately, while I think that fan sentiment matters to the, general duration and tenor of the negotiations because we know that fans are going to, or may,

punish the league generally for a protracted lockout, right? We've, we saw the effect of 94 on attendance and engagement with the sport, right? So to say that it doesn't matter would be inaccurate, I think. But in terms of like the nitty gritty particulars of the negotiation, it's an interesting tactic because the fans aren't at the table and the owners are the ones that are going to institute a work stoppage in all likelihood, right? Like if we follow sort of the the beats of the last negotiation, it's not going to be players striking that puts games in jeopardy. It's going to be the owners locking out the players. They are going to do that to deny players the leverage of a of a strike, but they're the ones that are going to be doing the stoppage.

It's not going to be the players, right? And so it's an interesting move to try to advance a particular narrative and really center, like a desire for competitive balance and the games to be played and the smell of the grass when you're the ones that are going to be locking out these guys, right? So that part of it is strange. My understanding

from the academic literature, and I'm open to there being new study on this, to be clear, it might have shifted, but my understanding is that, like, the public perception

isn't necessarily going to dictate terms at the table in any kind of appreciable way. Yeah. Now, if one of the ultimate, moves that the league, one of the levers they want to pull is to try to get the federal government involved in the negotiation at a certain point. Perhaps they view there being

fan sentiment on their side as like something to point to when trying to pull that lever. I don't know. But it is a, it is an interesting sort of move. It's definitely a more, it's definitely, I was going to use the word sophisticated and I feel like that's giving it more credit than it's due. I do feel like some of these pieces are being written to drive me and Craig Goldstein individually

insane. I just want that out there. I think that that's an important possibility we should consider that some of this is, at least as an ancillary benefit meant to drive me personally insane.

Younger players are producing more wins than ever before while veterans continue receiving a disproportionate share of payroll. I don't know. You want to make them all free agents from the jump? What are we talking about here? Everyone likes to get under Craigskin, but yeah, I don't know if that's the sole editorial mission. But I'm even more focusing on the unby-lined stuff that's just being promoted to, yeah, just millions and millions of people on Instagram or wherever. And so in that respect, it is definitely, it has the feeling of a more coordinated and strategic sort of endeavor on their part than even the last time around. When, as we noted, they were making, I think, free use of state media and advancing a very particular understanding of the negotiations in that.

Now, in fairness, the league isn't the only party to this negotiation that has, one, a social media presence and two is trying to use that presence to advance its understanding of the negotiations. Like I follow the PA on Instagram and they're not just talking about how excited they are for guys to reach like 10 years of service, right? So I and I think that that's important to know because we want to give an accurate description of the playing field. They just don't have as big a megaphone. Exactly. And so right. And they don't have their own network. And so I will be curious, particularly while the season is still being played,

what countermoves the union might try to engage in because they don't have their own network, right? And their Instagram account, for instance, has a fraction of the followers that the leagues does. But they do represent the players and those guys talk to the press every day. You know, they're in front of a microphone every day. And some of them have big social media presences, so relatively. Right. And so I think that the idea that this necessarily has to be sort of a one-sided thing is maybe incorrect. Now, the decision to shift the focus away from excellent play on the field to the negotiations, if you're the players, like, that's a strategic decision you have to sort of assess.

And I don't know if that reads a particular way, if the way that it reads is universally positive. like, you know, there's, I'm sure, considerations to be considered in trying to use that pulpit right now. But also, people care the most about what these guys have to say in season. And so how that gets navigated, I'll be curious to see. But, yeah, I mean, like, I think that it would be naive to say that anyone who is analyzing or reporting on this stuff doesn't have a perspective, right? I think that you can have a perspective on, say, the question of organized labor generally and still offer to your readers an accurate assessment of the realities of these various proposals

and what their effects on free agency, service time, the size of the minor leagues, the potential talent in the majors. You can do those things. I think acknowledging where your biases lie helps. you to do that. But we all have a perspective, right? Like, I have a pro-labor perspective on life. And so I'm given in a sort of side-swipy, sub-tweedy way, the business to some folks. But, like, I have a perspective on this stuff, too, right? Like, I want the union to get a good deal because I think it's important for organized labor writ large for Major League Baseball's Union to get a good deal. And I think

it's important to the state of like fairness in the economy that we operate in for organized labor to be strong. So like I come to this with a particular political perspective, but I like to think that I can still offer an honest opinion and assessment. Like for instance, I am not so enamored with the way that the union has conducted itself over the years that I can't acknowledge a nervousness around how they might sacrifice some of the interests of amateur players in the form of the draft proposals to satisfy established players who are already union members. I am nervous about that. I don't think they're going to go for this because it's such a whack-a-doodle proposal and no one liked it. You can tell that that didn't go over well when we got the free agent restriction stuff because

that, to a certain slice of fandom, I think, reads much more reasonably, especially those folks who are fans of leagues like, say, the NBA, the NFL, the NHL, where it feels familiar as a way of approaching free agency. And I think that it's sort of a sign of how badly that draft proposal went over. I was very surprised. I hope everyone checks out Bowman's piece from Monday, where when we were all at the draft combine last week, he asked a number of the prospects, sort of what their take on it was. And I was very impressed. you know, in the conversations at least I sat in on and then obviously reading through his piece, those guys would know what's going on. They are very clued in to this stuff. And people's willingness

to speak on the record about it varied guy to guy. And, you know, they're trying to get drafted. I'm not saying that's, you know, I'm not trying to hold that against them. But it was not universally well received, to put it that way. Yeah. Well, it has ramped up seemingly. And we'll see if it continues to as we get closer to it actually mattering because a decision will have to be made. And I can't imagine that many fans who are just watching a game really want to be forced to think about CBA stuff constantly.

Maybe it's not worse than whatever other ad or promo would be running then. Who is responsible for this new Ozzympic ad? I want a name. I want a specific person's name. What on earth? Why did I hear that, Ben, sorry to interrupt you, but I simply have to say my piece about this.

Why did I hear that ad? I heard it multiple times an ad breakover the weekend. What is going on? What is going on? Also, Justin Long and Hodgman, how much are they paying you? You're better than this. And I'm not saying anything about Ozempic as a, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about this ad.

I'm talking about this ad. Why are we hearing this? Oh my God, Ben, I was like, I, I'm sitting there. I'm having a Saturday. I'm trying to, you know, deal with the world and stuff. And so I have baseball on and I'm working on a puzzle. You know, that's a recipe for, one, disassociating. And two, trying to bring your cortisol levels down, right?

And your happiness levels up. And instead, I am being bombarded with this Ozempic ad, with this relentless, relent. Why is she out of the ball? I don't care. I'm happy for people who are taking Ozzympic, We can take it in pill form now. I got that message and I never need to hear it again.

Don't share needles. Tough choice. It's either Ozempic or salary cap propaganda over and over and over again. I'd rather the salary cap ads because at least I can get mad at something in an intellectual way, whereas this awakens in me a hatred for people I have previously been mostly neutral on. I don't have a developed just in long opinion. Hodgman is fine. What are we?

I do think part of it with MLB. is that the league thinks it has a persuasive winning message for the common fan this time around. It does. It's probably true. Yeah, I think it's probably resonating. And they're putting it in terms of, hey, here's what fans are saying,

and we are just doing the fans bidding because we're looking out for the best interest of baseball or something. And obviously, there are ulterior motives there, but they can sort of sell it as well. This is what fans want. And it largely is what a lot of fans want. And so I think, and obviously MLB has made it so that fans think that more so than they would otherwise. I don't want to say that fans have been brainwashed by MLB.

I think fans can reach their own conclusions and legitimately would be upset about large payroll disparities and the Dodgers, et cetera. But MLB has stoked those fires and has talked up just how imbalanced MLB supposedly is and how there's this big disparity in competitive. that it balances a problem. And so when you keep hammering that home and you're the commissioner and everyone will print whatever you say and you keep saying that, at least lately, then that will sink in at a certain point. So I think that's part of it. But yeah, just watching it's like, well, who is this for?

Okay, it's for the fans. But then to what end ultimately? What are you hoping to achieve? So anyway, we ran through some of the possibilities there. But I do think that's part of it just because that disparity has been such a hot button public issue. and MLB can sell itself as being on the side of the common fan, even if it also happens to be the side of multibillionaires who want to save some money. So, yeah, I think that's a part of it.

It's the specifics of this message that they can craft to appeal. So we will see how that evolves as we get closer and how the union responds, if at all. Okay, wanted to mention because you brought up the Mets, We talked about Mendoza a little bit, and there was a piece at The Athletic by Will Salmon, which was sort of Mendoza post-mortem. It was one in a many inside the Mets clubhouse, what went wrong sort of things that I've seen over the past couple of years. And this one was kind of talking about how, well, there was more going on here than just Mendoza's managing, obviously. And a lot of it focused on this patchwork quilt roster and the fact that all these guys were kind of thrown together

and there was so much turnover and everything. And we've talked about that and I've stat blasted and written about that. But that really seems to have sunk in for the Mets where that's bearing the brunt of the blame or a lot of it is not just, oh, David Stern's made mistakes, but also just the whole design of trying to remake your roster just on the fly like that in a single offseason that this was kind of doomed from the

start. And I thought coming into the year, even though the research that I did suggested that all else being equal, it's maybe a bad sign if you have this amount of turnover, I still thought, yeah, but these players, they project to be pretty good. And I think maybe they'll be better and they're coming off this collapse. And it made some sort of sense, even if it wasn't exactly how you would draw it up that however inelegant it was and maybe the pieces didn't fit together perfectly that individually the guys would be good enough to make up for that and that just has not been the case and that might not be the case for any number of reasons it could be injuries it could be just sometimes it happens and everything goes wrong and players have down years and everything

But it also could be because of the way this roster was constructed and reconstructed. And so there's a lot in this piece about that possibility. And I wonder whether that will have an effect on future overhauls and makeovers and whether teams will sort of pause before doing this again. And it was an unusual thing to do to take a team that was not terrible last year despite how it ended. and then say we're just going to let all these long tenured guys go. And a lot of teams having just barely missed the playoffs and started last season as well as it did, a lot of teams would probably just say, well, we'll bring some guys back and we'll make some upgrades here and there.

And the Mets were just like, nope, we're almost sort of starting over here. So because this has kind of crashed and burned in this very visible way, I wonder whether that will have any impact or whether this perception that there's really something to not just throwing guys together all of a sudden, that having some kind of organically developed roster, of course, teams always prefer, well, if you can have homegrown guys and bring them up together, that's good, not just from a chemistry perspective, but also just because they're cheap and they don't cost as much. But this has become kind of a clubhouse story, and whether it's just sort of the smoke that's been out there about, oh, Soto and Lindor and do they get along,

or then Lindor kind of seemingly gesticulating, trying to get Andy Green not to make a pitching move that was caught on camera the other day, some of this stuff. But there is this perception about the Mets, really, that you can't just kind of take all these, you know, not even misfit toys. Like they were good toys. A lot of these were highly priestly. toys, but you can't just kind of play fantasy baseball and just stick them together and expect the whole to be as good as the sum of the parts. That's kind of what seems to be sinking in here.

So I just wonder whether that will have any effect on the team construction, whether anyone will learn from the Mets lesson or extrapolate from the Mets, whether that's actually what happened or not, I don't know, because just to give you a little excerpt from this piece, it says, though Mendoza deserves some blame for the Mets mess, conversations with more than a dozen people within the organization spelled out how the state of the team reflects the danger of putting together a roster the way President Baseball Operations David Stearns did with so many new faces, while multiple Mets people said the players are not bad guys, one club source went as far as to say that they didn't have a full roster doing whatever it takes to win, added another person

affiliated with the Mets. When you get new players, young players, old players, guys in contract years, their first year in New York, they're not doing well, they're focused on themselves. And then it says after subbing a core group of players for a batch of newcomers and changing nearly the entire coaching staff, did a lack of continuity contribute to the Mets poor performance? I certainly think it's possible, Stern said, when you have a first half like this, you play like this for a prolonged stretch. It's never just one thing. It's probably a variety of things, and that is possible. I don't know the degree to which the issue is one of personality jelling and one of bad player evaluation in terms of the potential for guys to contribute. And it could be a real mix of both.

And as we have noted many times on this show, when you are playing like, do-do. The underlying personality issues can sometimes be exacerbated, right? It's really easy to get along or at least fake getting along when you're winning. When you're losing, it tends to be more acrimonious. There tend to be accusations leveled about whose fault it is, et cetera. So I imagine it's a combo of those things. It seems like, I don't know, they're in this weird spot where they were, good at self-scouting

to an extent, right? They let some, a lot of the guys who they let go in free agency, I think, ended up being defensible in terms of letting them go. But then they were bad at self-scouting in other ways, and I'm including Freddie Peralta as self-scouting because of

Stearns. And boy, I overreact. I didn't overreact to that. I think the principle of it is right that, like, I wish that the brewers wouldn't move on from guys so, quickly, but also it was fine, as it turned

out. So it's important that I say that because we got some very upset posts on blue sky back in the day. And I want to acknowledge you guys were right. Ready for all time? He's mid. So maybe it'll work out, but not right now. All of that to say, I think that

there will be lessons learned, but I think that the degree to which it will really alter roster construction is going to be limited, in part because you know, the financial resources available to the Mets front office to facilitate this dramatic of a version of this kind of roster construction are not available to every club, right? Every team isn't going to be able to go out and sign all of these guys.

I just think that the number of new faces in a clubhouse who are like guys who are understood to be impact players, right, or who are there to be impact players. is going to be a lot smaller for most teams, both because they might have a more established core, and so the need to bring in quite so many guys might be limited. They might have fewer departures to deal with. That was the other piece of this. They did have a fair number of guys in free agency,

so they had to fill in some spots. But also, most clips just aren't going to be given quite so much latitude from a payroll perspective. Some of the, like, interpersonal things seem kind of obvious, to me. Like, I don't think it's a revelation that you bring in a bunch of dudes who don't know each other. And even if none of them is like a stinker, they just might not gel, you know? And some of those interpersonal conflicts or, you know, lack of connection are going to matter more than others. How much of your freshman class did you like? You know? And it's just like, good luck. Here they are. You are going to be thrown together a lot because you haven't to arrive here at the same time. Yeah. So, you know, I don't know that there's anything particularly new to learn here. I do think that because some of the individual players involved in this are going to be around longer,

it behooves the Mets to do a really honest, perhaps uncomfortably honest self-assessment to figure out what weren't wrong here. the urgency of that self-assessment, I think, is going to depend on their own understanding of how quickly they can contend again. And whether they want to try to move on from some of these guys or not, they're going to be stuck with some of them. I'm going to be stuck with a lot of them. And then, of course, there's a question of, like, who ultimately is going to be doing that internal process review and is it going to be strict? You know, I know you and Ben talked about this last week, but sort of simple. to the situation with Breslo, albeit with like different communication foibles

or lack thereof along the way, it's all on him now, you know? It wasn't Mendoza's roster insofar as he didn't build it, but it's really sterns his show now because he has made the, he's pulled the, hey, part of your job as a manager is to get fired lever.

He's pulled that lever, and now the only lever left is in a different room and a different guy can pull. Yes. The ejector seat, yes. And he was asked if he considered resigning himself. David, you said you consider a partnership with Mandy. That said, have you considered stepping aside? Is that something you've thought about? Why not? I believe that we are building the foundation of an organization that can deliver what we all want.

I don't believe that our record on the field this year is indicative of some of the advancements that we've made in an organization. But clearly, our record is nowhere good enough. Who has to know that question? That's great. I mean, it's super uncomfortable to be clear. And you know the answer. But it is sort of like a, so hey, you ever think you're the problem? Like, you know, the most graceful way to ask that is, have you?

you ever considered moving on yourself? Yeah. Right. And you know, he's probably not going to say yes, but it was kind of fair. You know, sometimes there are questions that are fair to ask, but you know you're not going to get anything. So it's like, well, what's the point of asking it anyway? It was kind of fair to ask.

Someone has to ask. Someone has to ask. It was fair just because he had earlier kind of taken Mendoz off the hook and been like, well, you know, this is a larger issue. And that was months ago. And so then if you kind of lay it at your door, then, well, how did you not consider holding yourself responsible for it? It's a funny, it's a really funny situation because, like, on the one hand, I don't think that Mendoza is, like, personally responsible for them having a six-erer game. I don't think that he's, like, a particularly outstanding manager.

I don't think he's necessarily the worst manager in the league. Who is that guy? I couldn't even rightly tell you, right? like the, it's just a very compressed ranking. Like the skill sets are real close together, I think, a lot of the time. I notice Mets fans who I follow on social media being frequently frustrated with him in a way that feels like it is happening more frequently than it is with maybe some other fan bases.

How much of that is like Mets fans are very active on social media. I'm noticing it. I don't know. Is it a shark attack problem? Who could say? As opposed to everyone who's annoyed with Dan Wilson, who is right. You know, like, this is the thing. It's like, it's not a, it's not necessarily an accurate parameter of the actual, um, skill of the manager when people complain about it on social media. But also, some of the, the tactical issues do seem like they are legitimate. And, you know, there is something to the idea that like, what kind of ship you're running over there? Is it a tight one? Because it seems like these, you have a lot of these, like, knucklehead moments, right? Like, how responsible for, what's the, the capacity of a

manager to curb the knucklehead instinct when, you know, you have players who, I think part of the thing is, like, people look at that Mets roster and are like, this should be a better club. You know, You got some dudes here. You got some capital D dudes. And you got some guys. You got some dudes and some guys. Why are you like this? You got dudes and guys.

You know, normally when you got dudes and guys, that's a good combination. Yeah. I think it was Mike Puma of the Post who asked Stern to that question. Yeah. So many names in today's episode. So many. Something was rotten in the state of Mets before this anyway, which is the thing.

Because if you're like, well, we broke up this great clubhouse group. and they were thriving. Well, that wasn't really the case because they collapsed last year too. And would they be better off with, say, Alonzo and Nimmo than Viento's and Semian? Yeah, they would. It's not as if they have really suffered

from the departure of Edwin-Diaz because he got hurt and Jeff McNeil hasn't been good. But I guess you could say that, yeah, if there's some incalculable clubhouse cost to that type of turnover, maybe there is. But Will Sam and Tim Britton

have done a deep dive at the end of almost every season to be like, what went wrong with the Mets? Like, you know, last year, how the Mets lost their groove inside baseball's biggest collapse. And then 2023, how the $445 million Mets crashed and burned, right? And a lot of that stuff was about Clubhouse Discord and guys not getting along and effort level not being there. So this was not really a model roster when it came to that before. So, yeah.

Yeah, it seemed like, you know, there were personnel. clashes that predated this current roster. Some of those seem like they have been resolved as a result of guys getting shipped out. Some of them seem like they are still active and going grudges or concerns. Like at a certain point, you can find yourself just in the eye of a storm where you have unexpected underperformance, a lot of injuries. Guys end up grousing at each other as a result of that. or they were grousing already. Now they're really grousing, you know.

But maybe what will happen is Mendoza will have been fired and everyone will feel so bad about it that they'll start getting along, you know? Maybe that'll all bond over that. Yeah, they're like, ah, we got a good man fired, you know, because we couldn't knock our shit off in the clubhouse. Like, oh, that feels bad. Yeah.

And I think I asked Russell Carlton to write about this once because there was some previous discussion about, oh, this team is sort of homegrown guys, and this team is a bunch of mercenaries. Maybe it was like a Giants versus Dodgers thing a few years ago. I forget what it was or Padres or something. But I think he found that there wasn't that much to it. How you put the team together doesn't really matter.

It might matter in certain individual cases. And there's a lot of people kind of valorize the, oh, everyone came up through the system together. And that's fun as a fan, I think. If you're a fan who's following just a crop of players as prospect, and they're drafted and they're coming and they're climbing prospect lists and you're looking and your fantasy casting and you're laying out, oh, here's what the lineup will look like. And then those guys are there and they're there for several years under team control and

maybe you extend some of them. I think that's probably the ideal experience as a fan better maybe than just bringing in a bunch of guys via trade or free agency. But ultimately, I think fans prefer just winning however you get there. And I do think that in baseball, you have some teams that we're going to. win with guys who don't get along. And one of the most famous examples is the 1986 Mets, you know, people being at each other's throats or the Bronx Zoo Yankees or just misbehaving players who just still flourish

on the field. And I think it just tends to matter a little less in baseball than in some other sports, say basketball, for instance, where you just have a smaller group of guys and their rapport and their chemistry as players. And they're right on top of each other, you know? Yeah. Yeah. And they're relying on each other so closely.

You know, there's passing, right? Like, do their play styles mesh. Whereas in baseball, it's a little more plug-in play. It's not, I don't want to be stereotypical robot Sabermetrics guy who's just like, yeah, just plug in the player ID and run the projection and they will just play like that. Obviously, that's not entirely the case, but it's more the case in baseball than it is in a lot of sports just because I always say it's sort of like an individual sport masquerading as it. a team sport where individual plays, you know, there's just a little less interaction and dependency on your teammates.

So there are so many examples of teams that get along and don't play well or at least start out getting along and maybe then tempers rise when they struggle or teams that didn't get along and win. We've seen the whole Josh Naylor saga this week, right? Where it turns out maybe people really don't like Josh Naylor. And Austin Hedges was caught on Mike saying that no one likes you, not even your teammates. And then Stone Garrett posted something on Instagram. Yeah, that part.

Like, look. Stone Garrett was sharing a quote unquote prank that he says Nailer pulled on him about a decade ago. Yeah. A knife was involved. Yes. Here's what I'll say about Dr. Henry. He was seriously injured.

Seems like the nicest guy who accidentally stopped. one to one time. Like Stone Garrett is allowed to not like Josh Naylor. Yeah, I would say so. We're not breaking news here. This is an established story. There was like a prank or a hazing. Some of the details were hazy, but yeah, it was. It went wrong. Stone Garrett got stabbed. Yeah. And like it impacted his career. It did. It was like I'm not trying to make light of it. I genuinely Stone Garrett gets to dislike Josh Naylor, but the rest of his life, that is. He called him psychotic or something, which look, if you're on the receiving end of that, prank. I get it. Yeah. And so, you know, that goes beyond boys being boys. Obviously, that was a while ago. He was younger. Perhaps he has learned, but he has continued to rep teammates the wrong way. And, you know, not just opposing players in a kind of A.J. Prasinski way, but evidently, also teammates, as we saw, we got a rare window into that sort of thing when Austin Hedges just says it out loud and we can all just hear him say it. But it's funny because, like, Nailer, he's obviously very,

enthusiastic. He's very demonstrative. And sometimes if he's playing for your team, then you love that. Right. And he's been popular with fans when he's had some big hits and he's celebrated. And there are certainly things that I've enjoyed about Josh Naler. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Behind closed doors or closed closet doors behind which he's lurking with a knife to spring out and surprise you. Yeah. Well, maybe, maybe, yeah. Yeah. And like, have we heard anything from his, um, His Mariners teammates on this question? I haven't seen much about that. And you remember this spring training when Nailer walked up and greeted Jen Powell when he came to the plate. And that was really nice.

And he talked about the importance of inclusiveness and everything. And, you know, maybe that's just lip service or he's blowing hot air or something. But it was nice to hear a player say something like that. It was a nice sentiment. And so, yeah, who knows when the camera. are rolling and the mics are recording what's different from behind closed doors and these guys are around each other constantly

and they know the players better than someone who's just watching the games and reading the body language. So it's hard to say. Obviously, he seemed to really enliven the Mariners and was good for them and important in the playoffs and fans really responded to him and everything.

So I was sort of surprised to see some of this stuff come out. But yeah, seems like he wore out his welcome in Cleveland a little bit. Yeah, which is especially interesting to consider because his brother was still there, right? So like how did that dynamic play? What were we talking about? I'm not trying to make fun.

I'm not trying to make light of stone, Garrett, getting not to be clear. Yeah, talking about players and how they get along or don't and how we may or may not be aware of that. Yeah, I'm sure that there's all kinds of stuff and also, you know, I think that it's important

to remember that like some of these are sort of longer standing. Feud is probably too strong in most cases, but, you know, he's not your guy. And maybe you get into it with him when times are tough. But also people change. They change teams. They grow up. Like, I think that keeping in mind that these things can be evolving is important. And, and also that, like, guys can not get along and it doesn't necessarily mean that, like, one of them is a monster and the other is an angel. Like, sometimes you just don't gel with people. and they have to spend just so much time together.

You know, the fact that any of these clubhouses have some level of, like, peace and tranquility is frankly shocking. Because, like, you know, I think that sometimes, like, the dynamic at play is, like, imagine if you worked with your siblings, you know? Which he did. Right, which Naylor did. But just in general, like, you're with these. people as much as you're with your family. And also, it's an environment where we have professional expectations of them. And sometimes their families are there. You know, like, that's the other thing about it. It's like everybody's kids and wives and girlfriends are hanging out. So I think that

it's, as we have said many times, a profoundly strange workplace. It is, there are ways in which I think we are right to say, hey, regardless of that strangeness, you need to behave in a way that sort of mimics what we would think of as like a normal person subject to HR. And then also, I think remembering that strangeness is useful when things seem like they go off the rails. And it's like, yeah, but imagine if you didn't like Sue in accounting and then you had to be with her every day and travel with her. Yeah. And they're in less close proximity than they used to be when they would travel by train. and so you'd be just

Charters are like improving the average amount of sort of civility on rosters in an appreciable way or I guess it could be the opposite because you are forced to spend less time with these players and people used to room together now they don't in the major

they have their own rooms and everything and so yeah it could have gone more south in the past if you really didn't like someone there was just no avoiding them because there was just more I mean, you weren't traveling as far, but you were traveling probably for longer just via a slower means of conveyance. And then you had to room with them. And then there was the whole idea of, oh, a bad clubhouse.

It's 25 guys, 25 taxis after the game. They're all going their separate ways after the game, which is probably happening all the time now. Well, maybe you're taking the charter bus back to the hotel or something. Right or whatever. These guys don't have to carpool, right? Like they can afford to pay their own way. And so, yeah, I think they have a little more privacy. for better or worse.

And I read Zach Meisel's piece about Nailer at the Athletic. And sometimes it's just baseball being a business, poisons the well a little bit because Nailer wanted to stay in Cleveland and he was angling for an extension. And they didn't want to make that commitment to him. And they traded Aaron Sibali, who he was close to. And then they brought in Cominsardo, who was kind of his replacement. And then that kind of poisons the well a little bit. And then you start feeling bitter and unappreciated.

and then maybe that boils over. So, yeah, anyway. Do you ever call your sister sis? Do you ever refer? Yeah, occasionally. Do you? Okay, yeah. I'm more often, I more often call her sissy than I call her sis.

Yeah, I was wondering because, you know, we were watching the Madison, great Taylor-Sharrison show. I know some people think that's an oxymoron, but I enjoyed it. And two of the characters. How many of them are there now? Oh, so many, so many. But, yeah, so in the Madison, Kurt Russell's character, is the brother of Jack Shepard from Lost, you know, Matthew Fox. Oh.

Yeah, he's there. And he's playing Kurt Russell's little brother. And in the introductory scene, the Matthew Fox character keeps calling Kurt Russell Big Brother, you know, he's like, Big Brother. Because they do that in Hollywood to establish what's the familiar relationship here in a kind of awkward way. And my wife, you know, who has four siblings. she's always like laughing at the scene because it's like

no one calls each other big brother or little brother it's like you could just there's some more subtle organic way to convey the relationship between these characters that they have one of them call big bro little bro but probably some actual siblings do say that and say sis or whatever so it's not entirely a fiction yeah i mean i i mostly refer to my sister by her name yes right and i mostly refer to my brother by

his name. Yeah. I will call him bro occasionally. I'll sometimes say I'll call Lauren Sissy like as a term of affection, but not often. I mostly call her by her name. But yeah, like we also, you know, we're allowed to have different haircuts than we did as children because we don't need to establish that we're the same character and flashback. Yeah, or matching uniforms or something. Yeah, that's good too. How many of these shows? Oh, I was right. Matthew Fox did have bad stuff. I was like, Yeah, there's a Wikipedia page subsection that you. Yeah, I was like, hmm, I thought there was a something. There was a reason why he was on a bit of a hiatus from Hollywood.

Anyway, I'll let people catch up on that on their own if they care to. I don't know if the nailers call each other big brother and little brother, but everyone in baseball just says bro, so that works even if you are biologically related. Yeah, they're all bros at the end of the day. Although, as we've established, some of them are dudes and others of them guys. It's true. Yeah, okay. Plus, if you're bros with Beau,

you can just call him Bo. Also, just wanted to note the MIS pitch on Friday, and I had a brief note in the outro about how he had a new high score. And 105.5.5 he was clocked at this time. I think it's only a matter of time and maybe not much time until he does throw the fastest pitch on record, because he was extremely close. And after the game, and I played a snippet of this clip,

he said that he slipped on that pitch, as if to say he could have thrown harder. And he said, I could do 106. People were asking him, like, what's the max? And he was saying, oh, well, according to science, like, someone could do 108. Like, I think I have 106 in me. He also did say he's not necessarily trying to do that and that it's about winning and how effective you are and not how hard you throw. But it sure seems like he is trying to up the ante every time out.

And so he is now within range, I would not be surprised if even his next start. He pumps it up just a few tenths of a tick more, and that is all it would take. And so I've been trying to think of the nature of the velocity record. And this is without getting into just how hard did people throw before we could track that. And, you know, you had slower guns and hotter guns, and they measured from a different point out of the hand, all of that. but just the epistemology of pitch speed, the pitch demology, just like how hard you throw? Because MLB will say, and if you look it up on baseball savant,

the fastest pitch is a rollous Chapman, September 24th, 2010, 105.8. And the second fastest is a world as Chapman several years later, July 18, 2016, 105.7. And then the Ms. who was clocked at 105.4.5.7. and then the Ms, who was clocked at 105.5.5 on Friday, is tied with Ben Joyce, who also threw 105.5 September 3rd, 2024, cautionary tale, perhaps. And then there are a bunch of Chapman pitches and then a couple Jordan Hicks pitches. And that's it. There are 13 pitches on record that are 105 or faster. But we're now splitting hairs. We're parsing differences of tenths of a mile per hour.

And it's not as if this stuff, and I'm pretty comfortable saying that the fastest pitch on record or tracked by pitch FX or Trackman or Stackcast is the fastest pitch. I do respect to Bob Feller and Nolan Ryan and everyone else, they threw very hard. But I doubt they threw harder than Earl's Chapman or the Miz or Ben Choice. But one of these days, if the Miz can just ramp it up from 105.5 to 105.9, which I don't doubt that he could, and probably if he, kind of wanted to throw control out the window he could. Like if he just wanted to kind of, you know, here's how hard I can throw. The 105.5 was a, it was a strike.

It was, you know, down the middle, more or less, and it was fouled off. But if he wants to set this record, he can, I think. And I wouldn't be surprised if he does. The thing is, though, that it kind of does vary depending on the source. So pitch info, as you know, has its own data, which is based on the same raw data from pitch FX and stackcast and everything going back to 2008. But it is a little bit different because the folks behind it, Harry Pallitus, who works at Baseball Perspectus and others,

they kind of massage the data a little bit after the fact. They make various adjustments. And some of that is pitch type, you know, and the automated classifications for Savant are pretty good these days, I think. But in the early days, they were perhaps not as reliable. And so Harry and others would do more bespoke. We're actually combing through the data and we're looking at individual pitches and we're trying to figure out and looking at grips and what was this actually and then doing reclassifications. And this data is available at Brooks Baseball. It's also available at fangrass.com.

And pitch info has a lot of team clients, too, that want this data that was at least considered high. higher quality, I think, than the raw data from MLB in the past. And I think the savant stuff, it's good these days. Like, Stackass is pretty good. But one of the things they did, in addition to reclassifications, was recalibrations. Because especially back in the day, you would have some days and some games where you still had hot guns. Right. And they weren't actual radar guns.

They were still cameras and computers at that point. But you could just tell based on, huh, in this game. In this park, everyone who's pitching is throwing like two miles per hour harder than they usually do everywhere else. And so looking at that, it was basically like park factors sort of, but for pitch speeds and characteristics and then adjusted on the game level. And, you know, there's no, I guess, ground truth here where you know for sure how hard it was. But I tend to believe that that data, at least for the earlier years, was probably more accurate because of the. these corrections and adjustments that they made. And so it differs a little bit.

If you look at these fastest pitches ever and look them up on Brooks Baseball, you get a slightly different leaderboard. So Aroldus Chapman, for instance, did not throw the fastest pitches on record according to pitch info and Brooks Baseball and presumably fan graphs. The fastest pitch on record, according to pitch info, for Chapman is 105.39. So they go to two decimal places. That's how precise it is. But same game, that one that according to MLB was 105.8, according to Brooks baseball and pitch info, it was 105.4 or 0.39 to be extra precise. And that was the fastest pitch Chapman ever through, according to this data.

And the next fastest is 105.17 for him. And he did that a couple times. So if you look at pitch info and you rely on pitch info, then the fastest pitch ever thrown. is actually by Ben Joyce, which was clocked at 105.5.5, according to MLB, and according to pitch info, is still 105.5.52, in fact. So that is the fastest pitch ever thrown, according to pitch info, Ben Joyce, September 3, 2024, 105.52. And then actually, Jordan Hicks is number two, because he, according to pitch info, through 105.41 on May 20, 20, 2018. So it actually goes Joyce and then Hicks and then Chapman and then the Miz. And I was furiously refreshing pitch info and Brooks Baseball on Friday night into Saturday morning to see what they would clock the Miz at because I was kind of excited because if pitch info had him at even 105.6, then that would have been a new high score according to pitch info. But I figured if anything, it would probably get adjusted down because it's an outlier on the high side. And in fact, when the dust settled, pitch info says that his 105.5.5 was actually 105.25.25.

So a mere pedestrian 105.3 if we round up. But that's interesting. So this is, it's unofficial, obviously, and MLB is going to keep its official records. And that's what's going to go down in the books. And if the Miz is clocked at 105.9 according to Statcast, then that will be the number that everyone cites and credits. But it's not even... That's not the only one, and it's maybe arguably not even the most accurate one. And so I will be interested to see how that shakes out. Like, we could end up with a situation where the Ms. throws the fastest pitch ever according to one data source, but not another. And you'd think that in 2026, with the precision that we have here, those data sources would agree. And largely they do, and they're close, but we are talking about tenths of a mile per hour.

here. And so if you run these adjustments and calibrations, then that actually can make a difference. So I'm keeping a close eye on this. I'm not saying that the Ms. should aim for the records. I think he should aim for staying healthy and helping pitch the brewers deep into the playoffs. But if he is going for this or if he does it without trying to, which I would not put past him, then we will be parsing the pitch info and Brooks baseball and fan graphs and savant and seeing if these sources agree, or at least I will, if no one else does. I support you in your effort. I think that you are correct that people will largely defer to what is listed on savant,

but that doesn't mean we can't be persnickety about it. Although if we were less persnickety about it and just deferred to savant, then maybe the Ms. doesn't try to break the record, like in a bigger way. Because maybe he goes, oh, well, I should just throw it like 107 for safety, you know, have clearance. I do like that his approach does seem to be like he's like, you know, one is not saved by velocity alone, right? Like the command and control pieces of it are important to him. No, he's just firing in there. He's just right down the middle. Here it is hit it and no one can.

Yeah. That's the sound it makes. I'm sure. Oh, oh, that was more a whistle than I meant. I'm so sorry. I've yelled into the microphone. I started out in such a Molly Jolly mood, and then I got very animated by the conversation around the CBA stuff. And now I feel like I've come back down again. I would call myself Bert Jolly at this. Yeah. Yeah.

Anyway, how can you not be pedantic about pitch speeds, I guess? How can you not? Yeah. I think the Miz did have the distinction, according to MLB, at least this I don't think is listed at Brooks baseball, but that pitch was the fastest on record in terms of perceived speed. So the perceived velocity of that pitch, that was the fastest because, of course, the MIS not only throws super hard, but is huge and gets great extension. And so that pitch, the perceived velocity, according to baseball savant, was 107.8.

So it's not just 105 or whatever. It's a fast 105. It really gets on you, even by one. 105 standards. Yeah. And that is a new record, surpassing, of course, the previous fastest on record perceived velocity pitch, which happened on April 13th, 2022, and was thrown by Tanner Rainey. Hmm.

Tanner Rainey through the fastest perceived velocity pitch of all time. That's so funny. I don't think he would have been in my top 15 guys to guess. No, I would not have had that one probably either. So that's something. I think that must be a data. error actually because Rainey has never been clocked higher than 101 point something. And also there's no pitch speed associated with that pitch with a perceived speed of 107.7. So I don't think he had

that kind of extension, which sounds sort of dirty. I don't mean it that way. So no. The highest perceived villos are all the mis. And then Chapman and then more the miss. And the last thing that I want to ask you about, so we're almost at the July 4th holiday. People are going to be barbecue and they're going to be having their beers and brats but i want to be brats brats well i'm trying to do a little wordplay here oh sorry because because it's bratt summer meg and i'm referring to mitch bratt of the arizona diamond bex okay who captured the imagination the windup to that joke lasted a long time i want you to know i'm not sure it was worth that either i don't even feel bad about interrupting you it wouldn't have been smoother if i'd let you go all the way through no not really yeah it was

It was a long way to get to perhaps not the greatest payoff. But nonetheless, Mitch Bratt has captured the hearts and minds and imaginations of baseball fans and sports fans because of his, I think it could only be called Balletic follow through on his windup and delivery. I've never really seen anything like this. It calls to mind the sort of illicit deliveries that we saw of Jordan Walden and Carter Caps a ways back where they had the high. But it's not that. I'm not questioning the legality of this move. I think it's legal, whether it's advisable or not, I don't know. But he has this little leap.

He does this little spin move as he is completing his delivery. Yeah. And it's quite captivating. It's charming. And it seems to be working for him. I mean, this is a meet a major leaguer. He was just called up. And he's a Canadian.

He's from Ontario. He's a mere 22 years old, and he's left-handed. And he has now shown up, and he's pitched, he only pitched one game, but he made it three innings. And he actually started that game and pitched three innings and gave up one run and, you know, walked a couple, but struck out a few. So it was fairly effective. And obviously, he's earned his call-up. And this is unique.

This is a one-of-a-kind motion that he has. It's unreal, and I'm kind of surprised that it's legal. Yeah. You know, it's just so weird. It's just such a weird thing. It doesn't seem illegal, but it does seem illegal, you know? Like, I can't pinpoint the part of it that I think is in violation of the rules, but also shouldn't it be? It's distracting.

It's very distracting. Yeah, and so there are some ways of distracting opposing hitters that are not legal, right? Sometimes you'll come out if a, if a, if a, pitcher has, I don't know, like a frayed sleeve or something and there's, you know, stuff dangling off their clothes or whatever or some, you know, something they're wearing or what is, some accessory that's maybe possibly distracting for the hitter picking up the ball. That becomes a safety issue possibly too, but also maybe it's an advantage. And so sometimes they will have to curb that kind of behavior.

And then there was the Walden and Caps, which was like skipping forward so that they were able to get incredible extension. And that was ruled to be illegal because of just, you know, the letter of the law and how you have to be in contact with the rubber and like here's what you can do in terms of steps. They were basically traveling to put it in basketball terms, I guess, but in baseball. And this is, yeah, again, it's not that. So it does feel like he's almost getting away with something. It also, it also feels like, gosh, he's very agile. You You know, like this is working when he's 22. Will this work when he gets older?

It seems like he's subjecting his body to a lot of stress. Like there's a real kind of whiplash to this like recoiling or uncoiling that he does on the follow through. He's definitely not, I would say, in good fielding position. No. He should not challenge any pitches, I don't think, because there's no way he has any idea where the pitch was. So I just, I love it because it's. singular and we're in this era where the perception is everyone kind of has conformist mechanics and right you know maybe because of the quality of instruction and a lot of people they're going to

personalize coaches or academies or they're playing travel ball or they're going to tread or drive line or something and everyone's kind of coming with these cookie cutter stances and stuff and so it's nice when there is a sign of someone standing out from the pack and you know maybe that's happen to some extent with pitcher deliveries too because there probably is some more optimal delivery in general as sort of the standard template, the default, even if it varies from person to person. But this is definitely not how you draw it up. This is not how you teach someone to throw, but it's working for him and it's working for me as a spectator experience. Yeah. I mean, like, it's so cool. And it's nice to be able to tell a story about Diamondback's

pitching that is about something cool. and not someone being disappointingly injured. Yeah. But yeah, it's sure something. And it always, like whenever there's weirdness like this, I'm like, how did you arrive at this? Yes. How did you find this and go, aha, found it.

This is it. Yeah. And I was watching a YouTube video of him from a year ago when he was in the minors and he was talking about it. And he called it funky, which is an understatement, I think. But in that footage, at least, it was not nearly as pronounced. as it is now. So he does seem to have amped this up. Like there was a little bit of the spinning, kicking, rockets kind of follow through. But now he is, he is leaping. He is achieving

escape velocity. He is like fully airborne. Like you could freeze frame it. And he is like leaping up in the, it looks like he's about to kick his heels leprechaun style or something. Like it's really kind of impressive the air he's getting. And so I, I don't know. I haven't been watching him throughout his minor league career, but it does seem to have evolved, at least based on the footage that I watched of him in the minors. I think he's maybe taken it to the next level, and it has taken him to the next level, maybe. I also wonder now that we have traject and we have some simulation of release points and everything,

there's been some speculation that maybe it's an advantage for Rogers, for you savage. She has something very sort of. Yeah. Something extreme. And extremes are always good if you're effective just because they talk about the dead zone of pitch movement. If your pitches just kind of move like everyone else is, well, that seems like it might not be bad to be kind of average. Average is valuable. But if you are sort of smack dab in the thick part of the bell curve, then people are not going to be surprised by you because they've seen stuff like yours. And so you want some sort of.

unusual characteristic as long as you can make it work if you have some weird release point or you're standing on the extreme side of the rubber or whatever it is something to distinguish you or movement or speed or just everything if you're the miss probably and maybe this is that and so i wonder if when you do have traject and you have and traject sort of simulates it's not quite the same as seeing the guy in real life, but there's, you know, a video component to it and, and, like, the ball is coming out of a screen, a projection of that pitcher and his actual motion. And so if it's, like, the machine cannot currently encompass the range of all release points. And so you're a submarine guy or you're strictly over the top. Right. And, and maybe there are costs to that. And I talked

recently, maybe lowering your arm angle is a little less stress on your elbow. So, There's tradeoffs here, but if you could have an unreplicable delivery that someone can't practice against as effectively, and so the first time they're seeing it is going to be in the game, then maybe that'll be a new competitive advantage. And maybe that will actually push us toward less conformity because you won't be able to prepare for that. It'll be like the element of surprise. So maybe, maybe we'll see that. Maybe Mitch Brat will be the one who brings us to that world. But it's pretty exciting, you know. He's really getting up there.

He has some serious hang time. I love to see it. Yeah, he really does. You're right that it reminds me the most of like a ballet dancer. It does. Like a male ballet dancer. Yes, you expect him to be wearing tights with a bulge or something. But he's not, he's just not questioning the size of his manhood.

Oh, my God. He's wearing regular baseball attire, but he's wearing regular baseball attire. He is doing a very aerobic, balletic kind of spin. He looks a little, it's like in the Seinfeld episode where George leaps over the puddle and some kids call him a merry. But it's not quite like that, and it's not the 90s, you know.

Kids would ever say such a thing these days. No, not that there's anything wrong with that. No, but yeah, there's a very non-traditional aspect to his. delivery. So I love it and I will be celebrating Brad Summer. I hope he stays up and continues to be successful. And I'm all for deception. Pitcher deception has been a big interest of mine. Yeah. And it's something that can be quantified a bit better these days and there are various definitions of deception. And sometimes it's like tunneling or sometimes it's just, yeah, you have a pitch that moves differently from how you would expect based on where it's released.

or my favorite kind of deception is just an actual visual, physical deception of some sort where you're hiding the ball, you're keeping the ball behind your body until late and hitters have a hard time picking it up, or this, which is just funkiness and just I'm doing a whole lot of stuff and you've never seen anything like this before and you're going to be so distracted by it. And I would guess that good hitters have tunnel vision, you know, not just for tunneling, but like they're able to put that destruction out of their minds a little bit and just focus on, okay, he's doing some weird kind of kick move here after the pitches released. But maybe it's a little bit like someone has a weird batting stance and it's mostly about the setup.

And when they actually swing, it's more or less normal. The weird part of this kind of comes after, but maybe it's still early enough that it's distracting enough to the hitter. But it does, it reminds me of the classic tweet, you know, the check this shit out, motherfucker, I slide one foot out from under me and fall on my ass. It's not clear what kind of move I was trying to do. Mitch Bratt has not fallen on his ass as far as I know while doing this, though I could imagine that happening.

But yeah. I would just like to point out for everyone that I did swear earlier, but I didn't drop and I didn't bring up the bulge. So, you know, for those keeping. score at home, who's working blue? I'm the main offender here. Yep. All right. Well, I hope I haven't been a brat. Also, since I mentioned the extension of Jacob Misrowski, I looked up Mitch Brat and he doesn't get great extension. He doesn't get bad extension, but his average four seamer, 92.2 miles per hour and the perceived speed of it, only 92.7. So he gets 6.5 feet of extension, which is pretty much smack dab in the

middle of major leaguers. Minimum 20 pitches thrown this season, Bratt's extension ranks 328 out of 639. So his little leap, his spin move doesn't seem to be granting him great extension. We need to get searchable distraction on baseball savant. I'd like to be able to query that. Also, update on the John Mosellac Artie Moreno relationship. The update is, they have one. There is a relationship. After we recorded, Ken Rosenthal published a Q&A with Moseilac at the athletic. And here's part of their exchange. Ken says, a lot of people, including me, find it curious that you took the job without talking to Artie Moreno. Why were you comfortable doing that? Mosellec says, in my time with Molly, she told me that she's responsible for this search, responsible for this

hire. Subsequently, I have met with Artie. Since that introductory news conference, I had breakfast with him Monday. It was a productive meeting. When I left, I felt very positive. Ken says, do you have an understanding of his vision? John says, I think he's going to rely a on what I think the vision needs to be. Well, that's optimistic. I definitely think there's going to be opportunity to have some autonomy in how we do it. Obviously, he's the owner. There's going to have to be communication and trust built.

He does say, Mr. Moreno and I have met before. It wasn't like the first time we've ever met, but as far as spending time together and understanding backgrounds and philosophies and all that, that was our first blush at that. It was a productive meeting. Molly was in attendance as well. The three of us talked about a lot of things. Did we iron any direct strategy?

out of it? No, I didn't want to come out of that with that. I feel like there are a lot of things I don't know yet. It's my responsibility to figure those out between now and when these certain deadlines approach. Ken says, how long was the meeting? John says, probably two and a half, three hours. So there, Moseilac has had an audience with Artie. Just an interesting order of operations or order of baseball operations there. And as Ken notes, Moseilac is the first GM Moreno has hired, who is not a first-time GM. So maybe that does give Moseilac the standings. to push back and exert some control. And by the way, for anyone wondering, I talked to Ben Clemens last time about the variability

of the baseball this year, going from higher drag to low drag, pretty anomalous ball behavior. I mentioned that I would contact MLB to see if the league had any comment. And on Monday, it did. Evidently, I was the first to ask about this, and thus the first to get this response, though I gather that others subsequently asked and also received this response. So they sent me a statement that addressed what I asked about, the reduced drag increased carry, but also some other stuff that I hadn't asked about. So here's what the spokesperson told me, and I quote,

In early February, Rawlings notified MLB of an aesthetic issue with the baseballs that shipped for 2026 spring training and the regular season. In approximately 50% of the baseballs, some excess oil from the yarn inside the baseball, filtered through the leather cover of the ball, creating some yellow discoloration. Both Rawlings and MLB's independent laboratory at UMass Lowell completed testing on these baseballs, and the baseballs were within specifications and performed consistent with prior years. We notified the clubs and the MLBPA of the issue in February, and consistent with baseball chain of custody procedures. MLB's game-day compliance monitors remove any baseballs that show cosmetic imperfections after the pre-game mudding process.

Rawlings has resolved the issue with the yarn supplier, but due to the necessary lead times associated with baseball, production, the balls without the staining will not be shipped to clubs until late in the 2026 season or early 2027. It continues, MLB makes drag data available to the public on baseball savant, and we are aware of the recent reduction in drag. To be clear, there has been no change in the materials or manufacturing process of the baseball. Because the baseball is hand-sown and is made with natural materials, we expect variation in performance both throughout the season and between seasons. Rawlings and our scientists do not see any evidence to date, and

that the yellow staining is related to this change in drag. We will continue to monitor the performance of the baseball as the season progresses. So that's interesting. I had not even heard about this yellow discoloration of some of the baseballs. So I didn't ask about that in the beginning of the statement. Almost sounds like sort of a non sequitur. Maybe other people ask about that. But they're aware that that's an issue.

And then in the latter part of the statement, they say they don't see a connection between that discoloration and the reduced drag. But they are at least acknowledging that there has been a recent. reduction in drag. And they're saying that they're going to keep an eye on it. I don't really know why suddenly some excess oil from the yarn would be showing on the leather cover. Again, doesn't really seem like the most ringing endorsement of the quality control because MLB and Rawlings are not independent entities. MLB is a co-owner of Rawlings. But if they are removing from play, the balls that show, as they say, any cosmetic imperfections, then that makes it sound like the balls that they've

actually used in the games don't have that excess oil showing. And thus, Maybe that wouldn't actually have anything to do with the reduced drag. I don't know. There was a semi-viral clip early in June of Ronald Acuna Jr. Sitting in the Braves dugout, holding two baseballs up in each of his hands at arm's length and studying them very carefully, as if he was comparing their size or something. But maybe he was comparing coloration. Maybe one of them looked a little yellow. So the plot thickens, sort of.

Maybe the excess oil is irrelevant to the reduced drag. But I asked for a comment. I got one. So we had the juiced baseballs, now we have the jaundiced baseballs. Hopefully they will figure this out. If it's just affecting the color and not the flight, then I guess it's not quite as bad as the uniform snafus from a couple of years ago when the universal concern was the pant.

Maybe whatever aspect of the yarn caused the excess oil has also had some other effect. But the league is saying they didn't do anything different on purpose and that they haven't found any evidence that what happened by accident is affecting the flight of the ball. We will see. I'm glad the drag data is public. publicly available because it does apply pressure to explain these anomalies or at least offer a reply when asked about them. Some of the drag figures have been a bit higher in recent days, so who knows? Maybe whatever happened will not continue to happen. I also read that MLB applied to trademark the term play ball and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office denied MLB's application saying,

in this case, the applied for mark is a commonplace term, message or expression widely used by a variety of sources that merely conveys. an ordinary familiar, well-recognized concept or sentiment. So MLB cannot trademark play ball regardless of how the ball behaves. You can support EffectivelyWild on Patreon by going to patreon.com slash Effectively Wild and signing up to pledge some monthly or yearly amount to help keep the podcast going, help us stay ad-free, and get yourself access to some perks, as have the following five listeners, Raymond Mason Murillo, Jeremy Israel, Danny Barwin, James Proul, and Francis Xavier Pfeffer,

which is the given name of, Big Jeff Pfeffer, effectively wild legend, who has not been among the living since 1954. So perhaps that is an assumed Patreon username. Nonetheless, we are grateful for the support. Patreon perks include access to a third unrestricted episode every week, a monthly bonus episode, the latest of which I will be editing and posting shortly, exclusive live streams, membership in our Discord group for patrons only, prioritized email answers, personalized messages, shoutouts at the end of episodes, potential podcast appearances,

as Fangraphs, memberships and 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 Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube music, and other podcast platforms. You can join our Facebook group at facebook.com slash group slash Effectively Wild. You can find the Effectively Wild subreddit at our slash Effectively Wild. And you can check the show notes

in the podcast posted fan graphs or Patreon 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. We'll be back with another episode soon. Talk to you then. Effectively wild, effectively styled, distilled over chilled beats, effectively mild.