Effectively Wild: A FanGraphs Baseball Podcast - Effectively Wild Episode 892: Carson Cistulli on Ranking Baseball’s Broadcasts

Episode Date: May 26, 2016

Ben and Sam talk to FanGraphs writer Carson Cistulli about his recently completed television broadcast rankings for baseball’s local markets.

Good morning and welcome to episode 892 of Effectively Wild, the daily podcast from Baseball Perspectives presented by our Patreon supporters and the Play Index at BaseballReference.com. Hello, Sam. Heyo. We are joined today by a man who needs no introduction, although he usually provides his own of considerable length, Carson Sestouli, a writer for Fangraphs and the host of Fangraphs Audio. Hello, Carson. I didn't know you had that.

You had that little line Is that spontaneous? Is that improvised? No, that is actually written On a page before me Written material, well done I just want to note that there's I don't know if you and I have talked about this, Carson But Carson, of course, most people

Know by checking his Wikipedia page Is also a published poet And he is also a published poet. And he is published alongside Pulitzer Prize winning poets in a journal called Smartish Pace, which is founded and edited by my boss at Baseball Prospectus, Stefan Reichert. And I love this poem. I don't know if I've told you that, but it's called Young People Will Have White Hair. And it's an absolute delight of a poem. My favorite line is, the hurricane caused a benefit concert.

I can enjoy that. Yeah, that's good. Yeah. So anyway, worlds are colliding. I did not. Yeah, that's true. Yeah, that was, I mean, Stefan, I don't, I've never met, but he was very kind about it and reached out. And that was, I think that was before he was ever to any degree affiliated with Baseball Prospectus, but that wouldn't have, of course, changed my opinion about him. He made it easy for me is my point. I appreciate it.

So we have had you on today, not only to compliment your poetry, but to discuss your recently completed broadcaster rankings, your crowdsourced broadcaster rankings, television broadcaster rankings. I should say you are about to embark on your radio rankings. And this is the second time you've done this, right? But you haven't done it in some years, four years. So you thought it prudent to update these rankings so that you could provide the most accurate scores to your readers. And so you have all the rankings for every broadcast team. It's 32 because some teams have just away or home teams, and we will link to all the results, but we want to discuss them a little bit. So I think maybe what I'm most curious about is whether

there were any evaluations that were dramatically different of broadcasters who were included in both samples. Was there anyone who took a great leap, who did the broadcaster equivalent of adding a new pitch or adopting a new stance or became better in some market way? Yeah, well, one of the ones that certainly changed was the Houston Astros. And it was the reverse, it was the decline. But at some level, it was because that had a lot to do with Jim Deshaies, who I think was beloved both for his openness to analytics and also a sense of humor, was beloved as Houston Astros' color broadcaster. And I should note, that was the first time I did it four years ago. That was the biggest surprise to me.

The Astros were at a point in their history that was not, they were not at the peak of that history in terms of playing. So for a neutral fan, there was not really any reason to watch Astros games. any reason to watch Astros games. But then it became clear pretty quickly that from conducting this crowdsourcing effort, that people really liked the television broadcast in Houston. And so now Jim Deshaies joining Len Casper in Chicago for the Cubs. Of course, Casper was already probably, certainly among play-by-play broadcasters, probably one of the most progressive in terms of baseball analysis. And so to have the two of them united, not surprising that they finished, I believe, fourth this time around. So if you were to conduct this survey more frequently, in theory, you could develop an individual broadcaster ranking based on sort of a with or without you model,

where someone is good with Deshaies and bad without Deshaies and therefore the difference is Deshaies. Yeah. Maybe there aren't enough changes to do that well. There's not a ton of turnover. The other thing I'd say is that I think people still really enjoy Bill Brown who is the play-by-play man still in Houston.

So I don't think it's really, it's not designed to cast dispersions on anyone. And I should really note, and I would definitely stress, and I hope I stressed it sufficiently in all of the posts leading up to the final sort of master table, is this is not intended to be an objective assessment of broadcasters. It is meant really as a guide for the sort of people who would read fan graphs with some frequency so that they might know which broadcasters appeal to the readership there. And I think probably certainly the same sort of people, people who read baseball prospectus, who read 538's baseball content would probably be large in the same boot. But you're looking for someone who, if not necessarily exhibits a facility with advanced metrics, is at least attempting to ask questions and answer them intelligently. That's really the goal. I'm curious if you get the feeling that

there is a set of attributes that the top broadcasters display that is looked at sort of in a systematic way by the voters, and that theoretically you could design a perfect broadcaster who would appeal to these voters in a perfect way. Or if you think that like 90% of the voting is basically just done on the basis of whether a guy sounds like a good dude and whether he or she – are there any female TV broadcasters at this point? There are not. There are a number of sort of sideline type reporters. this point? There are not. There are a number of sort of sideline type reporters. In a couple of markets, readers responded by suggesting that given the people who were in the booth, it might

make sense to allow the woman who's at this point, I don't know, I'm not going to say relegated to the sidelines, but that she's employed in that capacity, that it might make sense to give some chances to women. Because I think there are a number of cases, at least, again, this is per the Fangraphs readers, where there's a sense that there's not a lot of value added by the people who are broadcasting. And in fact, and I'm not afraid to cite this, but I do know that, for example, with regard to the Atlanta television booth, which is Chip Carrey and Joe Simpson, there does seem to

be some active antagonism against advanced metrics, which I think was the trait that when it was displayed by broadcasters was the one that was most likely to get them a bad grade, was the active antagonism. Okay. So yeah, so you kind of answered it, but I guess my question is if it sort of comes down to what people used to talk about when George W. Bush was elected, that he passes the have a beer with him test more than anything else. That ultimately when we vote, we're not really looking at policies. We're looking at some combination of tribalism and is this somebody that you would want to hang out with? And that, yeah, I guess that's sort of what I wonder. I wonder how sophisticated my own personal rankings are, in fact. Yeah, I guess that's sort of what I wonder. I wonder how sophisticated my

own personal rankings are, in fact. Yeah, well, that's fair to say. I mean, I think, yeah, because ultimately, you know, the one thing is you have to spend, because of the way the baseball season and the game itself is constructed, it comes out to like roughly 500 hours per season, right? And so it has to be someone with whom you can, it's someone whom you can endure for that length of time. And so that's an important part of it. So I think that if there are broadcasters who, and this is sort of a hypothetical because I don't know if it really exists, but if there was a broadcaster, for example, who was particularly facile with advanced metrics but also had like zero charisma as a human. I don't, I ultimately don't think that that would do particularly well. I think, I think, you know, and it's been like the

Giants guys, for example, San Francisco Giants, I don't think they employ advanced metrics very often. But basically, everyone, yes, would want to have a beer with them. And that's in they, they finished second in the rankings because of that. Really, the top three, that applies to all of them. Vince Scully has been known to cite fan graphs in recent research, but he is not known for that. And the Giants and the Mets broadcasters will incorporate that from time to time, but they're definitely not defined by it. But those three teams are kind of in a class of their own in both your current rankings and your previous rankings.

They are alone at the top. They are the only ones for whom you would round up to five. Yeah, that's right. It's funny, though, because there was a bit of conversation, especially this past Tuesday when I posted the complete list. Sam Miller, you used the word tribalism. This is very much at play, I think, with regard to these comments, people suggesting that they're Mets fans who love the Mets broadcast but can't see why anyone could even endure for one second the San Francisco Giants broadcast

and similar comments made, except with vitriol directed in the direction of the Mets broadcast. It's very likely that if they were to live in the opposite city, they would have the opposite feelings as well. Carson, I saw a tweet by you that gave away your answer to this question. I'm also curious, though, to hear Ben's answer and for everybody to hear yours, Carson, and for some people to hear mine, is there a team on here that you have a particular affinity for that maybe outranks the readers? Is there anybody that you think is just not getting their due? The Chicago White Sox home broadcast now, which is largely the responsibility no longer of Hawk Harrelson, but instead Jason Benetti, still paired with color broadcaster Steve Stone. Jason Benetti, he basically has everything. He has very much the sort of voice for which you're looking, and he's also quite articulate. He has a facility with advanced metrics, but he also is very good at – he's got a great camaraderie with Steve Stone.

And so I would say, yeah. And I think that I understand why he placed where he placed is because a lot of people, I think, when they see the White Sox broadcast, probably still have the image of Hawk Harrelson in their head who is mostly doing away broadcast now. Yeah. And Stone, I mean, Stone has been for the last few years in a sense has been maybe after Mike Trout, the second most wasted resource in the game. I mean, Stone is really great. And yet, like I would never ever pick a White Sox. I mean, the worst feeling in baseball is when you accidentally click home broadcast for a game that the White Sox were hosting. And you're like, ah, now I got to go redo it. So I didn't even realize the White Sox had a new home broadcast because I would just never go to it. Right, yeah, and I think where you qualify a statement over and over, and yet, especially if it's something along the lines of a ranking, and I'm not blaming anyone for this, but the inclination is just to see where the thing that you're curious about, where they're ranked, and that's it.

And so I think that that's probably what happened. You't ask respondents to indicate their their team loyalties right no no curious i wonder whether familiarity breeds contempt or i was gonna ask that yeah because there's always this there's this uh rule of thumb in baseball uh reporting if you cover a team that they all share that every team thinks their shortstop is a gold glove caliber defender every fan does and every fan thinks that their closer is shaky and i'm wondering if broadcaster which direction broadcasters go i do think you're right in the sense that there's a tense to there's an agency to magnify the qualities that the broadcasters possess so you know if you only have to spend, well, so for

example, I'm a married person, right? And I love my wife and my wife loves me, but there are certain things we do, which would not bother anyone else in the world, but because we spend so much time together, they're naturally, I mean, we despise each other based on those grounds. uh in a way that in a way that is beautiful and unique because uh there's we're not close enough to anyone else to be despised in that way um and i think that that's that's largely i think that the metaphor holds or the analogy holds for broadcasters because um and in fact a couple a couple reader respondents did mention it some of this if i had just tuned into this once it'd, or you could tune into this broadcaster once, and you would be impressed until you realize that it's the same thing every night or something along those lines. Yeah, so I think there is a tendency to have those, even what appear to be rather mundane or innocent qualities magnified to the point that they drive you crazy.

Yeah, I'm not surprised necessarily by this because I've been accused of a hot take for this position. But I just really like listening to the Washington Nationals broadcast. I like F.P. Santangelo. And I mean, I could definitely see him, you know, maybe one or two times a game, he'll say something that's a little brash uh and i could see maybe being uh just getting fed up with it but i i like his cadence a lot and then this is not really that far off i mean you have tampa bay number seven you you you personally yeah carson rick tampa bay number seven and that's obviously very good i think tampa bay's broadcast booth is is is pretty darn near elite and i think you could make a case for them being in the top tier, the true top tier.

The true top tier, yeah, it's interesting. Yeah, it probably will not surprise you to learn that both times we've conducted this sort of exercise, Tampa Bay has finished with among the fewest votes or fewest ballots cast, which probably makes it, I mean, both Florida teams are pretty low. It's actually interesting with regard to Tampa Bay because a number of the people who choose to respond relative to where they're ranked – they're ranked seventh overall by this measure. But relative to that ranking, they receive very uncharitable responses.

uncharitable responses where for example san diego ranked 10th three spots lower received almost uniformly positive feedback so i don't necessarily know how to explain that and it's also possible that the ratings mean nothing is another is another theory i have although it does i think generally speaking it probably um it passes the uh it passes the sniff test there are a few here and there high and low but uh you're you know the ones that that your readers have identified as the bottom are often the ones that that also drive me crazy yeah i will also submit uh and because i'm on the east coast i don't watch as many of their games as i'm at otherwise but with regards to los angeles dodgers of course everyone is familiar with Vin Scully, the readers, the respondents for the Dodgers away games, which are anchored by Joe Davis, play-by-play broadcaster Joe Davis.

Davis himself, I mean, he works with Garcia Parra and Hirshhiser, but Davis himself received a lot of praise in a very similar way that Jason Benetti did. You would think so because he is, what, 27 or 28 or something. and you would think that getting a prominent job like that would be analogous to making the majors at 19 or something, if someone entrusts you with that job. And of course, he has done, I think, national broadcasts or at least regional broadcasts for Fox and seems to be much in demand. So you would think that the aging curve for broadcasters, while obviously much more forgiving on the downside, would not be too dissimilar on the front side, where if you get

this prominent job early on, that's probably a good indicator of your potential and longevity. Yeah. Can I also make one statement about Hawk Harrelson? Him as a person has caused me to rethink how I might do this again. I actually don't believe I would ever attempt to do it like this because it would be very confusing. But I think that if you were to create two criteria,

because, right, so with this, I did charisma, which is essentially like, how likable are they? Analysis, which is to what degree do they provide some sort of,

doesn't have to be necessarily, you know, sabermetric sort of analysis. Just are they, you know, do they try and remain at the top of their intelligence? And then overall, I think if you were to essentially divide the charisma category to two, which was on the one hand, how much personality does this broadcaster exhibit, right? Like what's the volume of his personality yeah is it is it a sort of bland professional is it is it like a very strictly professional broadcast or do you feel as though it is a vuncular in the way that only uncles can behave which is they say whatever they want because

they're uncles and so that'd be one rating like say in one where like a five is highest volume of that one is lowest and then and then the other one to five would be to what degree do you care for that personality or to what degree is that personality likable? The thing I like, I actually approve of Hawk Harrelson is his lack of professionalism. I actually appreciate it. The way it manifests itself may not be entirely palatable for everybody. Certainly some people enjoy it. itself may not be entirely palatable for everybody. Certainly some people enjoy it,

but in some cases I actually might prefer Harrelson over someone who's a little too careful. That's interesting. I mean, I see what you mean that too careful is definitely a flaw, but I don't think that I would want a guy who's at five either. I mean, I think there's, you want five for likability, but I think you want like three or four For strength of personality Other than Kruko I can't think of Any of the sort of cartoon type Broadcasters that I care for at all And Kruko is one of the most

Polarizing of the top tier broadcasters In the sport too So I can understand that That's probably true Generally speaking I will submit as well Maybe it was only anecdotal I haven't actually gone through and parsed it. There did seem to be, there did seem the ratings, if you were to go about it and look at it regionally, they did seem to be higher the further west you went. And I wonder if that's also just because

people in the further west you go tend to be more charitable. I don't know if there's any, I don't know if that's true or not, but the level of vitriol among the East Coast broadcasters, or maybe there's a greater spread too, because of course New York is at the top. Yeah, so you've also got crowdsourced radio rankings coming out in about two weeks.

I don't know how much you have looked in the envelope, but do you suppose that there's a high correlation between a organization's TV broadcast and its radio broadcast? Or do you think that these are mainly driven by the sort of great man theory of history? Regarding the latter point, I don't know. Well, probably true. Yes, I don't think there's actually a lot of correlation There are certainly instances in which

A club will feature both For example, people will also love The San Francisco Giants radio broadcast With John Miller and Dave Fleming And the Mets as well are very good radio broadcasts That's true And it's a relatively new development, isn't it? With Josh Lewin

And of course the Dodgers have Vin for their radio, so that's obviously going to correlate. Right. Yeah, but I think that there are also cases, I think I would cite, for example, and of course, this isn't going to do with my own taste, but Cleveland, for example, Cleveland's television broadcast did not appear to be beloved, at least by Fangraph's readers. Whereas I think, despite the fact that he does not traffic quite very often in Sabermetrics, the radio broadcaster for Cleveland is beloved. Maybe it's Tom Hamilton, maybe is his name. Confirmed? Denied? Tom Hamilton is a broadcaster for sure.

Okay. Well, I think that's probably it. It's not Milo Hamilton. Are they related? I don't know that either. So I'm glad I could be of help. Yeah, chief radio play-by-play for the Indians, yes. Okay. Some clandestine Googling has revealed. Very good. I just did some math, a practice of which you approve. Okay, yeah. And I looked for a correlation between your overall broadcast rating for a team and that team's projected full season winning percentage oh interesting according to fangraphs.com yeah would either of you care to hazard a guess as

to whether there is a correlation between these two things oh well no the way you phrase that see if if there was i feel like you would have said whether it'd be a positive or a negative correlation or at least it's possible and so now now I wonder... I'm giving nothing away. Okay. It's for what year's record? Well, looking at the rankings now, I can... This year's projected record. This year's projected record.

I would guess that there is a... Oh, goodness gracious. Hey, can we keep the language? Watch the language, buddy. I'm going to say there is a weak positive correlation. I'm going to say it's over 0.5. I'm going to say it's like 0.18. It is closer to Carson. There's actually a positive correlation of 0.45, which I believe is known in the business as moderate bordering on strong. So there is quite a tendency for good broadcasters to be broadcasting for good teams,

at least in this one season. I don't know whether that applies in every year. And if it is the case, I don't know whether it's the case that good organizations tend to employ both good players and good broadcasters, or whether it's because people are happier and have happier positive associations with teams and broadcast teams that are calling games that are

wins. I would submit the one team perhaps I noticed some change with was Kansas City's television broadcast. They received an overall grade of 3.0 last time and of 3.5 this time. And to the best of my knowledge, there was no difference between the personnel. The thing that has changed is that the Royals have made the last two World Series. Yeah. Probably most broadcasters are more fun when your team is winning. Yeah. And I think that, of course, a lot of people made the point that what distinguished the Mets television broadcasters is the fact that they made the team

bearable while the Mets were playing quite poorly. And so that, I think you could probably argue without much effort that that was the sign of a good broadcast team is one you would essentially be watching, I don't know, for its own sake, but certainly in spite of the quality of the team. So you may need to put out a team results independent broadcaster ranking. Oh, yeah, that sounds like something I won't do. Need is a strong word, my friend. I'm sure I don't need anything. You know what I'd like to do?

Sleep instead. Yeah, that's what I'd like to do? Sleep instead. Yeah, that's what I'd like to do. So you did solicit comments or you gave people the opportunity to enter comments as they were writing. So what were the most common complaints and or compliments? Okay, so like one that I remember concerns the Milwaukee Brewers. And it had to do because the brewers actually were quite well acquitted. And part of that is Brian Anderson, who does play-by-play for them, and people recognize him for doing play-by-play for TBS during the playoffs. But another thing is they said with regard to Bill Schroeder, I think is how you say his name, Bill Schroeder, who's the color guy there,

they're like, yeah, he just seems to get along with people. He seems nice. And that did seem to be just the ability to exhibit an openness to camaraderie, just being pleasant, actually. Being pleasant seemed to be a comment that seemed to go a long way with readers, which again, you're talking about, you know, did there seem to, you know, what traits might have contributed to the overall scores? Yeah, just an overall sense of pleasantness. Someone you could just bear for that long. Yeah, I, now I'm trying to figure out who manifests pleasantness.

I mean, I think of the Yankees. I generally like the Yankees broadcast crew quite a bit. And I don't think of them as particularly pleasant. And they are quite low on this. They're surprisingly low, especially because you would think they would have a lot of home voters voting for them. I was surprised to see them at 21. I like them more than that. And they seem like, to me, a somewhat acerbic crew. And I think of Toronto as being a very unpleasant crew, a very critical crew. And they're also quite low.

I might be wrong about both of those things, though. I might be completely wrong about their pleasantness. Yep, you could. Yep. It's impossible to say. I also think you... Well, the comment with regard to Toronto, which they did not rank particularly highly, was that people had a sense that...

Well, actually, it's twofold, I think. People had a sense that it was essentially two color analysts in a single booth without a real play-by-play guy. And the other one is that it's possible that they have been spoiled, Toronto fans, by periodic appearances now by Dan Schulman, who works for ESPN. And I would say he was universally praised by respondents for the Toronto Blue Jays. So perhaps they've been spoiled to some degree by his periodic appearances.

I think he's only doing like 20 or 30 games this year or so. Yeah, the occasional broadcaster is a confounding variable that it's hard to know what to do. Like, for instance, Boston. I like Boston's crew. But when Eck is on, that might be my favorite, my single favorite broadcast booth. And so, you know, it's nothing against Remy, but when I turn it on, I'm hoping it's not him.

Yeah, and so Remy, so there's a couple things going on with Boston, too. You mentioned Eck, we'll get to him in a second. Remy, I think, he's sort of like a human manifestation of the city of boston and a lot of people don't like boston as a place especially people who aren't from boston um whereas people from boston like like boston typically uh yeah and so if you don't like boston then it's a strong chance you do not like you do not care for the way jerry remy participates in those in those games there's some strong chance you do not care for the way Jerry Remy participates

in those games. There's some suggestion among readers, maybe, from what they sensed in the early going, that the installation of Dave O'Brien as the play-by-play commentator there maybe readjusted Remy's approach to the game because, you know, maybe he had grown too comfortable was a comment I had seen. I don't necessarily have any comments on that, but that was one. Certainly Jerry Remy he has a crazy accent and he's a silly man

and it's understandable. Eck was regarded, was described as a wild card on more than one occasion, I think. And I think he's dropped a collection of F-bombs. He's scattered them throughout broadcasts. Yeah, I've recorded a few of them and posted them on the internet.

Yeah, I think that that should definitely be allowed. I think one great thing that MLB Network has done this year, right, is to give you this MLB Plus broadcast, you know, where you can hear, for example, Fangraph's alumnus, Mike Petriello, along with Fernando Perez, and occasionally, who else? Will Leach, I believe. Will Leach, yes. Will Leach stops by. I think it's a great idea because, and we see this too with a way that maybe, what, the Super Bowl is broadcast, where you can see like the coaches

talking about the game during the course of it. I think the alternate broadcast, provided the overhead is not too high, is a great idea. And having just a filthy mouthed, like to have Bill Burr watch a Red Sox game, for example, and just talk about whatever he wants to talk about. You get three hours of Bill Burr content and it's probably, you know, he says terrible things, I'm sure. But I think there's a market for that. I would be satisfied with Carson Sestouli and Dane Perry. Well, so hey, let me let me let me ask you one last question. And Ben might ask you one last question. I don't know. But you have a comment from a fellow named Rounders under this, who says the industry is in sad shape.

In response to somebody saying, wow, if this team is this high, then I guess the industry must be in sad shape. And Rounders says, the industry is in sad shape. The only model which develops talent is the solo model without a net. The buddy system covers for a lack of talent and guarantees you won't develop any.

You did this four years ago, whatever. You did it now. You've paid more attention to these broadcasts than the average bear. How is the industry? I think it's probably improved slightly in the meantime. And again, in terms of the industry as it relates to bespectacled little guys like us who want to watch the game a particular way, I think it's probably improved a little bit. But yeah, as for the rest of that comment, I don't know. I don't know if the solo model is the ideal one. I also don't necessarily know how people would learn. Again, I do think actually, I'm really

just saying this for the first time now. I actually do think that offering multiple broadcasts might have some merit to it. I don't know how that works on a logistical level, but I don't claim to know anything. So I think that's fair. Well, yeah, when you turn on, I mean, if you're working through MLB TV, you have, what, four options in most games, right? Because you can do the radio broadcast and you've got Home and Away. So if you can't find one out of the four that you like,

and, you know, mute is an option, so one out of the five, you know, you might just be too picky. will also submit that i actually i was positive that i would prefer natural bark sounds over like even if you have situations say it's like the four lowest ranked teams and uh i well i was surprised to find that i did not care for it as much as i would have supposed um i there's the desire and it's possible that many people will disagree with me, but just the desire to have someone constructing the narrative for you as you're watching the game. Apparently that drive is quite high. That's what I learned. Yeah. I've been trying for some time to convince MLB Advanced Media to share MLB TV data with me

so that I could do what you're Attempting to do here in a different Sort of quantitative way where I could Actually look at which broadcast Teams people prefer or Which they vote for their preferences With their clicks and their selections Of certain broadcast feeds but Thus far that has not gone anywhere

But they seem interested In the idea but it hasn't quite come to Fruition yet so I did have one Last question it's really more like a comment But there are some anywhere, but they seem interested in the idea, but it hasn't quite come to fruition yet. So I did have one last question. It's really more like a comment, but there are some cases here where the ratings for charisma and analysis do not quite match up with the overall rating, and they're not necessarily intended to. The overall rating is independent of those other sub-ratings, but I wonder what accounts for the differences in the cases where there are differences. And I wonder whether the producer

is sort of the unseen, unacknowledged quantity here that can skew a rating one way or another. Because a good producer can step on a good broadcaster and interrupt that broadcaster's point and disrupt the flow. And another producer could maybe tee up a broadcaster well and have the replay ready when that person has something to say. And maybe that makes a bigger difference than we traditionally think. It's very true. And in fact, I became more aware of that this time through than last time. I think people, there were a couple of respondents, in particular with regard to the Rockies broadcast,

although it's not my intention to single them out, I just happen to remember the comment, something to the effect that the broadcast was too busy, essentially. That there was constant interaction with social media, constant reminders of various promotions, that one got the sense that it was, you know, like a running advertisement for the club. And there was sort of like a saccharine enthusiasm that can occur when that happens. And I think that, for example, growing up in New England and going to Red Sox games, that was one of the pleasant things about going to their games is there was no, there wasn't really any music. There was no, you know, there were no other events except for the game. And so you did not get that sense that the team was desperate to entertain you, you know? And I by the network slash club itself, that sense of attempting to court enthusiasm for the team ultimately can leave a bad taste in one's mouth.

Yeah. Well, if you ever decide to redo this exercise and make it needlessly complex, you could add a production rating too. I've had lots of notes for you today on ways that you could make this exercise less pleasant for you. Yeah. It seems like it would take a lot longer. Also, I think that my guess is that the production ratings, I don't know this for fact, but they would be much less widely distributed. They would be less widely distributed. Honestly, I don't know the difference for most of them between a good and bad one. Can you think of any particular examples? Yeah, see? Yeah.

Miller, are you still there, Miller? Nope. I'm composing a tweet, and I had you on mute. Okay. What's your tweet say? I'm praising John Chenier for the article he wrote at Baseball Perspectives today and for his existence. Okay, that seems fair. I mean, you're what? You're an today and for his existence. Okay, that seems fair. I mean, you're what?

You're an editor, publisher? Editor. Yeah, that seems good. That's your kind of responsibility, right? Yeah. He's like the Rockies broadcast over here. Yeah. I don't know what that reference is.

No, you don't. No, you don't. Well, guess what? You can hear it later on your own podcast. All right. Well, you can find Carson on Twitter At Sistoli You can find him at Fangraphs

Writing and podcasting regularly If you want to participate in his radio broadcast ratings You can do so soon And if you want to examine his television rankings Then we will link to them And you can click on those links and see them Carson, you have fulfilled the obligation That you didn't actually have.

I guess once you agreed to join us, you were obligated to do so. Yeah. But before that point, you had no obligation. Thank you. Thank you. All right, that's it for today. You can support the podcast on Patreon by going to patreon.com slash effectivelywild. to patreon.com slash effectively wild. Today's five Patreon supporters are Justin Fitterman,

Kanan Crist, Chris Drovel, Guy Tabachnik, and Nathan Tuttle. Thank you. You can also buy our book, The Only Rule Is It Has To Work, our wild experiment building a new kind of baseball team. Book has been out for over three weeks now and is still the best-selling baseball book on Amazon with well over 100 reviews. We thank you and we hope that you will help us sustain that success. So if you haven't bought the book yet, go to theonlyruleisithastowork.com. You can see all the options for purchasing and you can read reviews and excerpts and interviews, as well as checking out photos and videos and stats after you finish the story. Please do leave us a review on Amazon and or Goodreads when you are finished. And I will be selling and signing books at the Baseball Prospectus Night at Citi Field on July 9th, which you can also buy tickets to now.

I'll be there with a bunch of Baseball Prospectus writers. There will be a panel with us. There will be another panel with Mets front office members. For $85, you get access to that event as well as a ticket to Citi Field to watch the Mets play the Nationals that day. So it'll be a big game. You also get a discount on a Baseball Prospectus subscription. And if this is anything like previous events VP has done at Citi Field, it will sell out. So reserve your ticket now. You go to baseballprperspectives.com.

You'll see a link in the blog section, but I will also link to it in the podcast post at BP as well as in the Facebook group. Hope to see you there. You can join our Facebook group at facebook.com slash groups slash effectively wild and you can rate and review the podcast on iTunes. Get the discounted price of $30

on a one-year subscription to the Play Index by using the coupon code BP at baseballreference.com. Send us emails at podcast at baseballperspectives.com or by messaging us through Patreon. We will be back with one more show this week. Tomorrow. Can you just fit my manuscript and say what I want to say? And I do it to you every day. You know what? You know what?

I have the same off the air as on the air.