Effectively Wild: A FanGraphs Baseball Podcast - Effectively Wild Episode 910: Mike Trout’s Identical Twin

Episode Date: June 22, 2016

Ben and Sam banter about Steven Wright and knuckleball physics, then answer listener emails about the least interesting inning, the one-baserunner leash, an all-or-nothing Ichiro, Mike Trout’s hypothetical twin and more.

Hello and welcome to episode 910 of Effectively Wild, the daily podcast from Baseball Perspectives Hey! To discuss before we do? Nope. All right. I think maybe Stephen Wright has taken over the crown as most gif-able pitcher. Oh, my gosh. I don't ever believe they're real. Yeah, it's incredible. Right. They look photoshopped. Right. There was the one about a month ago or a few weeks ago where he got Chris Davis to whiff,

and it really, really looked like the pitch went in two different directions on its way to the plate and then there was just this recent one I saw on reddit that is the ball does not complete a revolution on its way to the plate it doesn't even really seem to come close and yet he gets a swinging strike and it's so much fun to watch. And yet he gets a swinging strike. Well, yeah, I guess that's why he gets a swinging strike. And thusly. Right. Do you, does it actually, is there anything illusory in that? Is there anything at all that's just a trick of the eye?

Or is it actually changing directions more than once? I don't think it can. This is something that Alan Nathan would know about and probably has written about because he's written a ton about knuckleballs. So maybe you can Google and find something about whether it changes direction on the way of the plate. I'm pretty sure I've seen him do something on that topic.

The thing with the knuckleball is that its location is completely unpredictable. Like, you know, the pitcher aims for some part of the strike zone, and then the movement is just sort of random. And even he doesn't know where it will go around that sort of central point that he's aiming for. I'm not sure if it actually can change directions on the way of the plate. Do you see anything? Well, as you know, the problem with trying to read Alan Nathan while somebody is talking is that Alan Nathan shows his work. And so it's not that skimmable sometimes. Gotta read the footnotes. Yeah, exactly. It's very academic, very informative. This might not answer it. I don't even know. I haven't even gotten to the end of it. But this

is a description of an R8 Dickey pitch. The first change of slope occurs at 0.1 seconds. The ball doesn't actually move to the right. Rather, it continues to move to the left, but at a reduced speed of about 1.2 feet per second. The second change of slope occurs at about 0.3 seconds, increasing to about 3.6 feet per second. Didn't answer anything. Sorry. about 3.6 feet per second didn't answer anything sorry ben i'll tell you this there's definitely an answer here it is i believe it is in a different article uh that he presented at the ninth conference of the international sports engineering association 2012 an analysis of knuckleball trajectories is presented using data from the pitch fx video tracking system for pitches thrown in actual major league games the data reveal That contrary to popular belief Knuckleball trajectories are as Smooth as those From normal pitches. However

The data also show that the deflection Of a knuckleball from a straight line Trajectory is essentially random In both magnitude and Direction. Right. There's actually a BP article about this That was one of the things he wrote for the guest series. I'll link to it in the usual places, but I think it comes to the same

conclusion. So there's maybe something deceptive about the knuckleball mystique, which is the title of his article for Baseball Perspectives on that topic But what are we seeing In that, in that clip If not a baseball changing direction Well, here's the last paragraph from Allen's piece After he concludes That the flutter in a knuckleball Is on the order of a few tenths Of an inch at most

He says this appears to contradict the popular belief That knuckleball trajectories are erratic And often experience abrupt changes of direction Let me speculate that this belief Is the result of the randomness of movement, both in magnitude and direction, giving rise to the perception of erratic behavior. We've all seen instances where the catcher and pitcher get their signals crossed and the catcher has to lunge for the ball at the last moment. The catcher expects a certain movement and the pitcher throws something with different movement. With the knuckleball, no one really knows what

movement to expect, so it is not surprising that the catcher has some difficulty cleanly catching the ball and that the batter has even more difficulty hitting it. There are other instances where claims based on perception have been shown to be unsupported by the data, such as late break and the rising fastball. I don't doubt the perception, but I prefer to rely on scientific evidence when it comes to reality. But if it's just a perception It's a very strong one We'll do some further research

It's a complicated subject Let's plan on this Let's plan on doing an episode on Stephen Wright's knuckleball And maybe Dr. Nathan will be on But maybe he won't Either way we will have studied the issue A little bit better than this And we can talk about it

Because Stephen Wright is worth an episode Yeah definitely And the really cool just less than one minute takeaway is that he just gets tons of swings in locations where most guys don't get tons of swings. Jeff Sullivan pointed this out in a post recently that he has the lowest rate of contact inside the zone. So it's, you know, a bunch of aces. It's like the top five are Jose Fernandez, Clayton Kershaw, Max Scherzer, David Price, and then at the very top of the leaderboard So it's, you know, a bunch of aces. It's like the top five are Jose Fernandez, Clayton Kershaw, Max Scherzer, David Price. And then at the very top of the leaderboard with some separation between him and Price is Stephen Wright. So he just gets guys to swing through pitches in the strike zone because they do these really weird things.

And it's fun to make gifts of them. So Stephen Wright, he's good. I'm glad there's a good knuckleballer in baseball again. I guess Stephen Wright is making me a little happy. I had fallen out of any affection for the knuckleball, and I actually wish it would go away. Look, I would watch a league of knuckleballs. I feel really weird about there being one at any given time. Oh, I completely disagree.

I wouldn't want to watch a league of knuckleballs, but I love that there's always one. Yeah. I, you know, like a knuckleball, my opinion on this sometimes veers wildly for no particular reason. And tomorrow I might be back on team knuckleball, but I don't know. It's, I guess it's always hard to decide how you feel about a gimmick. And sometimes I like a gimmick if it seems strategic. And sometimes I don't like a gimmick if it feels silly.

And more than anything else, I just don't like watching a knuckleballer pitch. And so because of that, I think I've grown to not really like knuckleballers. But that's a fairly, like, I'm sure that there's an episode. This is fairly recent because I'm sure there's an episode where i said the exact opposite uh long ago and it might just be that for a long time there uh wasn't there was only r.a dickie and r.a dickie was like kind of blah after 2012 and maybe stephen wright is making me fall in love with him i thought dickie was less blah than wakefield i mean i liked wakefield but dickie's knuckleball was new and interesting it was a completely different knuckleball from any other kind of

knuckleball 2012 dickie was yes great fun right yes uh but after that less fun i don't like watching catchers try to catch it either i feel i feel sort of anxiety for them i don't know tomorrow morning i'll wake up differently Save your emails tomorrow morning I'll wake up different I don't have a strong opinion on this As one shouldn't Alright so let's get to some emails This is a question

From James in Long Beach Who is a Patreon supporter He says while at an Angels game a couple weeks ago My wife asked if I had a least favorite inning I don't and had never thought about it But started speculating on the fly He says, fresh and going through the order the first time or two, maybe the second or third. But of course, that discounts the entertainment value of dominant pitching, which I suppose should be more common in the very early and late innings. Bottom line, two questions here. What metrics would you look at to determine which inning on average is the least interesting? I thought about looking at innings with the least overall change in win probability added. Perhaps something else. What would you look at? And second, based on the stat or stats of your choice, which inning is statistically the least interesting? Put another

way, if I'm looking for the optimal inning during which to grab a beer, what's my best bet? Yeah, I don't have a great way of answering this, but maybe reframing it a little bit, I will. If you could only watch one inning of a single game and you don't know anything about that game it's like this is pre-game you have to pick your inning pre-game what inning are you going to pick because there's a pretty good chance you're going to get a completely worthless inning if you get the ninth right yeah there's a pretty good chance that the ninth is going to be california's primary every time well not every time but a lot of the time. It just, it seems like it matters a lot more because it's way higher stakes, way more, you know, like it's got 10, you know, 10% of the population.

But of course, usually it's wrapped up or often, not usually, but often it's wrapped up by then. And so you might get stuck with total worthlessness. Whereas the first inning is always good. In fact, the only, there is no way the first inning can't be pretty good. It's either going to be close at the end of it, or you're going to have seen all the exciting parts of a game that will henceforth not be interesting. So the first inning is, it seems to me that, wait, this question is asking the least favor, right? Yeah. First is the best hmm i don't know about that if i only had to choose one then i think i would probably i'd probably take the ninth just because although many times

it will be completely uninteresting obviously the highs are much higher than the first inning because you know you get the the same situation the interesting inning where everything is at stake and one team wins and you get a dramatic ending or a comeback. And so there's more potential for a great inning than you have in the first. First is fine. First is good. You get the good hitters coming up. You've got the starter in. Everything is new and fresh, but you never get the outcome. It's always just not knowing what comes next. So I would take the, the ending that ends the game, even though often the ending is unsuspenseful, it is sometimes very suspenseful. Yeah. It's a, it's a good, it's a good philosophy. I can't begrudge you that philosophy. You're going to get higher highs for sure. If you watch

the last inning, is there, Is there a plausible compromise inning? I mean, the seventh is almost the ninth these days in terms of strategy. Like the tension when the setup guys come in is often quite high, and you can delude yourself much more into thinking that a four-run game is close, and you might get to see the starter still in, doing his great starter things. And if he's, you know, striking out 16 or something, you might get to see the sort of more emotional later strikeouts. So you could see the seventh.

The second is the worst. The second's a bad inning. And the fourth tends to, I think, be a bad inning. The fifth is okay because a lot of times you have a starting pitcher just trying to get over the line and uh he'll be left in a bit longer to get beat up and i think that there's i think the fifth is a is a better offense inning the fourth and the second are the ones where the pitcher is the most likely to be batting so i would go i'm going fourth Fourth is the worst inning. And I'm taking seventh.

Eighth, I haven't, eighth feels nice, though. I feel like the eighth feels like a good inning. I like set-up men more than closers. I always have, you know. You know, I always have. I'm telling you that now for the first time. That's something people always say about Sam Miller, like set-up men. I always liked Felix Rodriguez more than Rob Nen.

I always liked Mike Jackson more than Rod Beck. I just like a good setup man. I liked Wade Davis more when Greg Holland was there. And so... I kind of like when the setup man is better than the closer. Me too. Right. Yeah, I do too. And so I do like an eighth inning. And an eighth inning, you know you're going to get both halves. Ninth inning, you might only get half as much baseball. All right. So I'm saying fourth is the worst eighth is the best okay i think those are pretty good picks i don't know if there's a single stat that would answer this question in a satisfactory way but another thing in favor of the first inning is that it's a very high scoring inning i think it's the highest scoring inning So that's something if you want to see action.

But okay. Well, this is sort of related. Jacob asks, what is the point of having a one base runner leash on a pitcher going into an inning? For instance, he's referring to a recent game. Bruce Bochy had that on Suarez in the seventh with a one run lead. Suarez got Hanley out, but walked Jackie Bradley Jr. Jackie Bradley Jr. ended up scoring

To me it's saying, okay, this pitcher is done But I'll give him one more base runner Seems like you're waiting for crap to hit the fan Instead of trying to prevent base runners Bochy is the king of the One base runner leash And he especially does it What's really frustrating is that

He will let a pitcher bat with a one batter leash And that's really Infuriating, will let a pitcher bat with a one-batter leash. Yeah. And that's really infuriating. However, I like the one-batter leash. To me, the one-batter leash is a good leash. I mean, because it's not like you're – sure, it looks annoying if he gives up a base runner on the first batter. But quite often, he's not going to give up a base runner.

Like he's going to get a bunch of outs he might get two innings for you well i guess the problem with it is that maybe you just generally should make the move earlier oh right so it's just a way for for you to kind of string it along and you have a guy who shouldn't really be in there if you were doing this optimally but yeah it's kind of hard to take him out just because he doesn't want to be taken out, that kind of thing. So it's just a way to do the less optimal tactic because it's easier and you don't have to burn as much social capital. You know, Ben, you and Jacob have convinced me, actually. I don't think I was really focusing enough on the word leash. If you have him on a one-base runner leash, it implies ambivalence.

And if you're ambivalent about the pitcher in the game, usually the bias is to keep a guy in, I think, too long. So usually you should, yeah, I think you're right. Usually you should just do it. If your confidence in him is so fragile that you have put him on a one- runner leash then Yeah I think you're right I think I looked at this Entirely the wrong way Alright can I just go back though There's a middle ground though Where we might call it a one

Batter base runner leash And maybe even the manager thinks of it As a one base runner leash but he doesn't really Know that it's a one base runner leash until he sees That base runner sometimes you just It's a tough call you really don't know whether you're gonna Pull the guy or not whether it's a one base runner leash until he sees that base runner. Sometimes you just, it's a tough call. You really don't know whether you're going to pull the guy or not, whether it's the right decision. I mean, a lot of moves in baseball are 50-50 or they're 60-40, but you have no way of knowing that they're 60-40. And so, you know, I'm just imagining a situation where,

well, like, you know, I'm imagining a situation where we had Santos out there and he's pitching well, but we also kind of think maybe it's time to pull him. And those two things are, that's like, those are competing, competing arguments. And one isn't necessarily right. And you don't know which one is right. You don't know, you don't know the exact moment that you should pull him. And so then when a guy gets on you, you use that as data, right? It's just, it's another data point. Maybe it's easy to overreact to the one data point, but all the same, you know, now he's going to be in the stretch, maybe through a bad pitch, maybe the stakes are a little higher all of a sudden.

And, you know, you were trying to ride him for an extra couple of batters or you thought maybe he was the Best option so I don't think that Pulling a guy after he lets one Base runner on necessarily Means that it was That I'm opposed to that move maybe you Just maybe you know well in a sense you should always Have a one base one batter leash Like if you if that if you pull

After 10 right if you pull Him after 10 base runners then after Nine base runners he had a one base runner Leash that point on. You're right. And so I have, I think that we underestimate sometimes how much easier it is to make a decision when you're in the moment than when you're thinking about the theoretical of the moment. So I, you know, sometimes I really do think you need to just sit there in the reality as it exists and make that move then. And that you just can't really put yourself in the hypothetical with quite the same degree of confidence. So I'm not, I'm not, I'm not burying

managers who pull a guy after one base runner. But I do agree that with the language that we use, you're right. You and Jacob are both right That it's probably overapplied Yeah, because if you saw something That you didn't like And that's why you have a one base runner leash Then maybe you should make that move Before that one batter makes you pay

But if not If the guy is cruising But maybe the stats say That the optimal move would be to go to a reliever because it's the third time through the order or something. But, you know, whatever. He's your best starting pitcher and he's a leader in the clubhouse and he's been pitching really well and you don't see any danger signs. That's something that can get you into trouble. Something that can get you into trouble. But even if a guy is cruising, once you get late enough in a game, he probably should have a one batter leash if something bad happens against that batter.

If you see him lose velocity or drop his arm slot or lose his mechanics or something, then he really had a one base runner leash in a sense. All right. So question from Eric. Let's say we discover that Mike Trout has a long-lost twin brother, Mitch Trout. Mitch is an identical twin, healthy and in world-class shape, but he was raised abroad and has never played a second of baseball. How much, if any, would a team post to bring Mitch in? Twin? He's a twin. He's an identical twin, and he has kept himself in shape.

Doing what? Pole vaulting. I don't know. I mean, it would matter if he were, if he kept himself in shape by playing basketball, football, golf, and tennis, that would be different than if he kept himself in shape because he worked, you know, he was a lumberjack. He, you know, he unloaded shipping containers at the dock. Like those are, I feel like those are different kinds of muscles and different kinds of skills. So should we assume that he is a, raised abroad.

Should we assume that he played, that he was a star soccer player in college? He was an all-regional tennis player in high school, but no cricket experience? Yeah, well, that does make a difference. I mean, he has Mike Trout's genes, so you would think that he would have been an athlete at some point. But who knows? Maybe he devotes himself to intellectual pursuits. But I don't know. I guess let's not assume he's a high-level athlete.

Maybe he's just a recreational sportsman. And we're assuming he's 24? Yeah, he's identical twin Yeah, but I mean, this question A minute or two older or younger than Mike Trout I know, but maybe Eric, we could also Look, we're assuming this We could also assume this email arrived three years ago

It's a lot different answer if he's 18 If he's 18 and you had the benefit Of knowing what Mike Trout becomes I believe first round pick If he's 24, I believe $250,000 to post. Really? Now I see. So what would, I wonder what that would be as a draft slot? It's like if he were fifth or sixth round, I think. Yeah. So if Mike Trout's identical twin suddenly becomes eligible for the draft at Mike Trout's identical twin suddenly becomes eligible for the draft,

at Mike Trout's age, you still think that teams would be taking fifth, sixth rounders ahead of him? He's 24, and he's never played baseball. No, that's pretty hard to overcome. If he were, again, if he were 18, it's not the same thing, but you've never seen A baseball pitched And you're already 24 You know

Yeah, I mean at minimum you're going to need First of all you might never be able to I mean you'll never be able to catch up To other players who've been playing their whole lives And maybe you missed some formative stage Where you need to see pitches In order to recognize them and have a database of pitch types so that you can recognize what's coming so yeah i mean he can never catch up probably best case scenario he turns into someone like bo jackson or something who's just like incredibly

athletic but very unrefined and not really a very well-rounded player and has lots of holes, but he's just so talented that he kind of gets by anyway. Yeah. And Bo Jackson, you know, had played baseball and so that helps him. And he got drafted when he was 20, actually 24. He was drafted when he was 24. was 24 But on the other hand Bo Jackson wasn't able to devote His whole life to baseball After he was drafted And Mitch Trout at the very least would have

A single minded focus Does the Michael Jordan precedent Help us at all here? I don't think so We didn't have a long enough time to see if Michael Jordan Or his twin brother Mitch Jordan Got better We enough time to see if my if michael jordan um or his twin brother mitch jordan got better we would need to see like i would like if i could see a development curve for michael jordan that'd be interesting to me well but well michael jordan was i mean he has points in his favor he

has points against him compared to mitch trout he was 31 that was his age 31 season in 1994 so much farther behind the eight ball than mitch trout but he was michael jordan so he was a world-class athlete in another sport and he had played baseball before i think high school i think he played high school right um bo jackson he was he was actually drafted um it was technically his age 23 season. He was born in November, drafted in June. So he was 23.7, as a prospect writer would put it. And he almost went straight to the majors. He basically played 53 games in AA and then was in the majors that year. So they apparently didn't think he needed much development. Yeah. Huh. If Mitch Trout is a free agent, I think he gets some real money. I mean, say you're the Angels.

Okay. You don't have a prospect, which is the real Angels. They basically don't have a prospect. So suddenly you're signing Mike Trout, the franchise cornerstone. You're signing his twin brother. So A, it makes Mike Trout happy. If Mitch Trout wants to do this, he's got his brother in the system now. And this would be the best reality show in sports. This would be a great source of publicity, I think, because we

would all be fascinated by how good this guy would be. So if you are a team that's not so good, So, if you are a team that's not so good, and you happen to have Mike Trout, and you have a terrible, terrible farm system, then why wouldn't you pay a significant amount of money for Mr. Mitch Trout, just to see what happens? At the worst case, it's good PR, you get some attention, you make Mike Trout happy. So So I think even the Angels would pay for Mitch Trout. Now, they'd have to have some other bidder in order to have to pay him real money. But I think teams would take a flyer on this guy. I don't know. I mean, just such a low percentage of athletes are as gifted, you know, raw skills as Mike Trout. And such a low percentage of players you draft or sign pan out.

So I think I think Mitch Trout gets a good deal of money. I'm trying to think of an actual number, but I think he gets something in the millions, which is very imprecise. Your answer is way more fun than mine. And I just don't see it i i mean it's a skill game yeah it is i mean he would probably be bad but just on the off chance that uh i don't know i i hope uh i hope it happens all right i guess we've answered that question sufficiently yeah i don't know we didn't actually All right. I guess we've answered that question sufficiently. Yeah. I don't know.

We didn't actually answer it. I answered it. I think a team would pay. I answered it. You answered it. We both answered it. Yeah. I think a team would pay $3 million for Mitch Trapp.

All right. All right. Tell you next? Sure. All right. Pretty quick one today. Somebody, a friend of the show, I'm sorry, I forget who, pointed out to me that the Mariners' Daeho Lee had a fun little accomplishment going.

He had 10 home runs in 120 or so at-bats, which is big-time power. Good season, good hitter, good signing. Zero doubles. Ten homers, zero doubles, and also zero triples. He has since doubled, but I got to wondering about whether Dejo Lee's season has any historical potential. So I wanted to see what the highest percentage of extra base hits any player's home runs made up in a season and career. So they, there are basically two all timers in this stat and they without anybody

knowing about it. One of them was kind of chasing the other one for his whole career. And depending on how you feel about it, maybe he passed him, maybe he didn't, but the all timer for a single season, let me just say, there are six players with a minimum of 10 home runs in a season who had at least 80% of their extra base hits go for four bags. 80%. So Dejoli is well ahead of that. In fact, Dejoli is currently

second all-time in total percentage. He's one of only two players with 90% of his extra base hits going for homers. Can I just pause though, before I give you some names, good or bad thing. If I tell you a player has hit a ton of home runs and zero doubles, does that, do you go, Ooh, or, or is that a bad thing? Well, there's that thing that people always say about young players, like he's got doubles power, but some of those doubles are going to turn into homers. And in this case, it's like all of them turned into homers, which sounds good on the surface,

but it kind of means you're an all-or-nothing hitter, basically. And so it's hard to be really good If you're a nothing hitter Can I just give you the extremely simple counter argument though A home run is better than a double So if you're hitting home runs Instead of doubles You're better than the guy who hit a double Yeah it's a rally killer though

But you know I'm trying to think if it would be Correlated with something bad Like you'd have to have a crazy strikeout rate or something Because you're an all-uppercut swing And you're just going for homers And you're selling out for power That kind of thing could be associated with this profile

Certainly lack of speed would be associated with this profile Yeah, that too And probably lack of overall athleticism So there are six guys before Deja Lee who had 80% of their extra base hits go for homers. Eddie Robinson is the champion by percentage. He had 16 homers and one double one year. Nobody's had a perfect season with at least 10 homers, but Eddie Robinson came the closest. 16 homers, one double.

Our old friend Art Shamsky is on this list. season with at least 10 homers but eddie robinson came the closest 16 homers one double uh our old friend art shamsky is on this list uh he had 21 homers and five doubles but then the the two at the top the highest percentage of homers uh make the highest percentage of xpc i'm gonna need to figure out a shorter way to say this it's too wordy but the highest was mart mcguire for minimum of 20 homers was mart mcguire 29 homers and four doubles that was in that year where he couldn't run like at all and like there were games where tony larusa was batting him like lead off or something i don't remember he was doing weird things with him just to get him in a bat because he couldn't even stand in the field so 29 homers and four doubles but going the only other player who clears the 80%

threshold with more than 29 homers was Harmon Killebrew, who in 1964, at age 28, had 49 homers and 11 doubles. Wow. That's crazy. Yeah. He did have one triple, but otherwise 49 homers and 11 doubles. So Killebrew and McGuire are the two career champions at this too, really. And Killebrew had 573 homers and 290 doubles. These guys were over 80% for a single season, but for a career to get a list of seven, you need to drop it down to 60%. So Killebrew is on the list of over 60%. But Mark McGuire is the only person on the list with over 65%. He had 583 homers and only 250 doubles. In fact, McGuire had 10 more homers than Harmon

Killebrew, and Harmon Killebrew had 46 more extra base hits than Maguire. So he really, in a sense, Maguire blows away even Killebrew, who was a legend in this unknown field. However, if you do even one slightly different way of looking at it, if you look at seasons with over, I think, 70% home runs, Killebrew had 14 seasons edging out Maguire for 13. So I don't think we need to say that there is definitely a champion of this. They're both all-timers. But if Dejo Lee, Dejo Lee is in a good position. He's already cleared my 10, but it seems pretty unlikely. This feels more like fluke than something that a lot of players have accomplished. The other career guys,

fluke than something that a lot of players have accomplished. The other career guys, over 60%, Dave Kingman, Cecil Fielder, Jim Gentile, Ron Kittle, and Ken Phelps. And Hillebrew strangely was not like this in the minors at all. He had more doubles than homers in his first year in the minors, more doubles than homers in his second year, more doubles than homers in his third year. And he actually had 16 triples in those three years as well, less than three years as well. But then as soon as he got to the majors, his first year in the majors, 42 homers, 20 doubles, 31 homers, 19 doubles, 46 homers, 20 doubles, 48 homers, 21 doubles, 45 homers, 18 doubles, and then at age 28, the all-time season, 49 homers, 11 doubles, one triple, probably the most lopsided homer season of all time.

Yeah, all right. Well, McGuire, Killebrew, pretty good hitters. Exactly. Pretty good hitters so far, too. The thing is, though, that McGuire, even before the steroids stuff, or maybe after, but alongside it, a lot of people have said, oh, he's not a Hall of Famer anyway. He was one-dimensional.

Right. And Harmon Killebrew uh walked in he got in in his fourth season uh-huh so pretty much the same player yeah even if you adjust for era and the fact that mcguire was playing in a high offense one he was a better hitter than killebrew yeah mcguire also by the way is the highest percentage of all hits as a home run by quite a bit. And the funny thing is that in the top 20 for that is Barry Bonds.

And Barry Bonds has more than double the home runs, more than double the doubles of McGuire, 10 times the triples of McGuire. Barry Bonds just hit so many home runs. That's how he got on the list. Alright. You can use the Barry Bunch has hit so many home runs. That's how he got on the list. All right. You can use the coupon code BP,

get the discounted price of $30 when you sign up for the Play Index at baseballreference.com. All right. Very related question from Ben in San Francisco, who says, I was pondering the value of a hitter like Jock Peterson, who tends to hit for low average, but is capable of posting a high OPS when he's drawing lots of walks. I was then reminded of

Ichiro's assertion back in the day. If I'm allowed to hit 220, I could probably hit 40 home runs, but nobody wants that. My question is, if there were no stigma to batting 220 in Ichiro's prime, would he have been more or less productive if he had molded himself as a power hitter? So often we have talked about whether Ichiro actually could have done this if he'd wanted to. So let's say that he could. Would he have been better or worse if he had switched to that profile? I'm curious to know if Ichiro had wanted to walk. Yes.

That's a big question. Yeah. Because you're basically describing Adam Dunn, except that Adam Dunn walked a ton. Adam Dunn without walking a ton wouldn't have been a very good player, really. Yeah, well, Adam Dunn, but also with all the stolen bases and also with the much better defense. Yes, right. Well, yeah, of course, he's going to have the defense no matter what. Now, if he's a 220 hitter, obviously, he's not using his speed so much. So it hurts Ichiro more than it would some guy who could, you know, hit 350, but wasn't a great base dealer. So Ich going to get close. He's going to have to struggle to get to 502, and he's going to be leading the league in batting average. I warned you, Ben. Wait, have you done the simple math and simply like—

Just like adding and subtracting total bases? Yeah, like who's got a better—yeah, exactly. Yeah, I haven't. So let's see. I'll tell you, Ichiro Suzuki's true average. Now, the problem is that his base running, he'd have fewer opportunities for good base running if he weren't. His base running might drop a little if you, but his true average in his career is 275, and at his peak, it was only 300-ish.

That, I mean, you could certainly do a lot better than a 300 true average if you're hitting 40 home runs. And I'm not sure how many guys hit 40 home runs with a worse true average. Yeah. With a worse true average, although back then it was easier. But Dunn's true average is 310, 290, 280, 320, 304. All in all, Dunn was a more valuable hitter if all of the assumptions of true average are accurate. And I have no reason to doubt that they are So yes, although Dunn didn't

Hit 220, he hit 260, 250, 220, 260 250, 230, 260 240, 230, so You know, 230 would make Ichiro worse And true average doesn't count base running, right? Oh no, right, I mean Ichiro would still He would still have to

Be base running, if he lost his base running In his defense along with this trade That would not be a good trade off No reason to think he'd lose the defense So I'm going to say yes If Ichiro Could really have hit 220 with 40 home runs He would have been a better hitter

I think that's probably right Has anybody ever hit 220 with 40 home runs And not drawn walks Yeah right because if you're a 40 home run hitter. I think that's probably right. Has anybody ever hit.220 with 40 home runs and not drawn walks? Yeah, right, because if you're a 40 home run hitter, pitchers are afraid to throw you strikes, and so you really have to be unselective. Like, who was that guy? Okay, so Fernando Tatis, for instance. Uh-huh.

Eh, he drew.80. Eh, that doesn't really work. He never hit.30. Wasn't it Tony Bautistaista didn't tony batista fit this profile dave kingman was not a big walker i guess in some seasons he was but lifetime he had about the same walk rate as etro not too much higher all right so tony batista 2000 41 homers 260 batting average 35 walks okay that's as close as we're gonna get that's you, 260 batting average, 35 walks. Okay. That's as close as we're going to get. That's, you know, his batting average is higher, but that's as close as we're going to get.

And it's the same era. And his true average was 268, which is quite poor. Yeah. So, I mean, if he weren't drawing a lot more walks, then you're talking about a guy with a 270, 280 on base percentage, aren't you? Yeah. And so that would be worse He would not be a 290 true average if he had a 270 on base percentage There's no way Even if it was a 290 on base percentage, I think, no way

It would have to come with walks I assume it would come with walks But if it didn't come with walks If it came with walks, the answer is yes If it didn't, the answer is no Simple as it gets It's as simple as it gets ben i agree and i i would guess that micro has the ability to walk more if he if he has the ability to hit 40 home runs then you would think he'd be really changing his game just overall at the plate and he wouldn't be swinging it as many

pitches as he does because he'd be looking for power and he wouldn't be swinging at as many pitches as he does because he'd be looking for power. And he wouldn't be trying to just slap hits here and there. And it hardly even matters where the pitch is when he throws just slapping something somewhere. So he'd be looking for pitches in the strike zone and he'd be letting other pitches go by. And so there's no reason to think that he wouldn't be walking more unless you think he is just wired in such a way that he would not be able to help himself so i agree what about uh like like i guess dave kim dave kingman's age 27 season he hit 37 home runs hit 238 and only walked 28 times that's about about right. But that's 1976. So I guess, you know, 37 home runs then meant more. So that's a 302 true average.

Well, it's a 129 OPS plus 793. So yeah, that's way. Yeah, that's a very different environment. So it probably drops down a little. I don't know. 270, 280 maybe. Anyway, he needs the walks Yeah right And that allows him to use his speed also

Alright so that is it for today Got some other good questions here I will star them for next time Keep the questions coming to Podcast at BaseballPerspectives.com Or if you are a Patreon supporter You can message us through that site Speaking of which Please become a Patreon supporter Go you can message us through that site. Speaking of which, please become a Patreon supporter.

Go to patreon.com slash effectivelywild. Five listeners who have done so already. Shane Allen, Hayden Kane, Dustin Palmatier, Steve Descala, and Andrew Cardamone. Thank you. You can buy our book, The Only Rule Is It Has to Work, our wild experiment building a new kind of baseball team. Go to theonlyruleisithastowork.com to find out more, read excerpts, interviews, reviews, check out stats and photos and videos. If you like it, leave us a review at Amazon and Goodreads.

It helps us out. You can join our Facebook group at facebook.com slash groups slash effectively wild, and you can rate and review the podcast on iTunes. We will be back with another episode tomorrow. Get back. I'd like to say thank you on behalf of the group and ourselves. I hope we pass the audition.