Effectively Wild: A FanGraphs Baseball Podcast - Effectively Wild Episode 935: A Round Podcast with a Round Bat

Episode Date: August 4, 2016

Ben and Sam banter about a hard-to-believe baseball ad, then answer listener emails about the NL Central, GM metadata, Aaron Sanchez, deceptive debuts and more.

🎵 Looking in your eyes Looking in your eyes Looking in your eyes Hello and welcome to episode 935 of Effectively Wild, the daily podcast from Baseball Perspectives, presented by our Patreon supporters and the Play Index at BaseballReference.com. I'm Ben Lindberg of The Ringer, joined by Sam Miller of Baseball Perspectives. Hello. Yo. So a couple days ago, you teased a bit of banter that I've been anticipating eagerly ever since, as I'm sure many listeners have. So you have an ad to share with us.

I do. And so, of course, people know that there are, I guess there are three elements of many baseball ads that we like to talk about. One is extremely poor representation of the sport itself. That is not at play here. Another is forced connection to the sport itself. The most classic example being hit a home run with, you know, Windex glass cleaner or whatever. That's here in this ad, but it's not what's significant about it.

The third, though, is the trope in radio ads of having ads that could appeal to no more than eight people in the entire world. And the classic is the plumbers and pipe fitters union ads that were briefly a meme in which didn't we interview a plumber slash pipe fitter? slash pipe fitter? We got a detailed email from I think a listener who was one and he explained why that works or how that works, which I don't remember all the details of right now, but it was a very informative answer. I guess there's also one final one that I don't know if we've ever talked about on the air, but I think you wrote about once, which is giveaways, basically like a sweepstakes giveaways tied to the baseball game. Didn't you write about that? I don't know.

I thought you wrote something about like various Papa Slam promotions or something like that. Anyway, that's – Oh, well, I did write about Papa Slam with Rob Arthur at 538. Okay. So this is maybe a little of that. But mostly it's the third. It's the ad that makes you wonder how many people are listening to the game for this ad. And so Ben, you have the ad it's for integrity, tough windows, uh, by, uh, Marvin Marvin is the window manufacturer

Marvin's. Uh, and I'd like you to play that if you would. I can do that. What does it take to win strength, endurance, durability. You've got to be tough. And Integrity Tough Windows are just that. They outlast and outperform the competition. Learn more at IntegrityToughWindows.com and enter for a chance to win a VIP trip to Marvin's manufacturing facility in Warroad, Minnesota. A guided factory tour, free airfare, hotel, and meals only at IntegrityToughWindows.com. All right. So there we have a basic ad where baseball is being done in the background, and there are some baseball puns, but then you get to the prize of this trip, which is a trip to Marvin's manufacturing facility.

And this is in Warroad, Minnesota. I've gone to the website to see if there are any other details. And there are a few other details. One is that the date is not that negotiable. The date is listed as February 2017. So you have to go to Warroad, Minnesota in February. I hear that's a nice time of year in Warroad. The trip includes commercial flights to Minneapolis and from there, a flight to War Road on the

Marvin plane, hotel and meals, and quote, a personal tour of the facility. Now, I've gone and done a little bit more research and I believe what they were referring to is the William S. Marvin Training and training and visitor center 704 highway 313 northern center oh ben for all the radio winners oh ben oh ben all right war road minnesota i'm just gonna do a little reading here okay sure the 6 000 square foot visitor center 6 000 square feet allows guests to experience the rich history innovations and commitment to excellence of marvin windows and doors includes a combination of artifacts and interactive presentation presentations that will wow visitors of all ages open to the public by the way don't tell the people who win this, but open to the public with free admission.

Weekdays and weekends. All right. So here are some of the things in the William S. Marvin Training and Visitor Center. Let's see here. The theater in which the movie The Man Behind the Legacy begins your experience and features clips of William S. Bill Marvin, Frank R. Marvin, Jake Marvin, Susan Marvin, and other Marvin employees. Let's see. The Bill's team meet the salesmen who spent long hours in station wagons on the road

and hear them tell some of their stories. Delivery truck. Not only will you see a replica of Marvin's first delivery truck, but an interactive presentation explains how Marvin deliveries have changed since the 1950s. The fire theater, smell the smoke and feel the heat as you experience the 1961 fire that destroyed the Marvin factory. Witness the emotion as family members and employees recount Marvin's decision to rebuild in War Road. The depot theater, view a of marvin print radio and television advertisements

do you think this one is included in the montage i think so yeah sure and because if this is a baseball podcast and marvin is a baseball window company the marvin way this gallery provides insights on mar patents, testing practices, suppliers, manufacturing methods, and delivery, probably based on the cardinal way as most teams ways are. So that is what you get if you win this package, which is going to, uh, going to cost you taxes on prizes that are valued at $2,000. Yeah. So you really don't get anything you get, you get a trip in the Marvin plane. I'm sort of surprised that there is a Marvin plane. Why is there a Marvin plane? Just to ferry executives from place to place or to ferry contest winners?

I don't know. So you get on the plane and then you go to a free visitor center, but you get to see War Road. So I guess that's the real price yeah war road population 1781 you could fit the whole population inside the visitor center probably yeah uh so i don't my guess if i had to guess it's that this visitor center exists as a two hour distraction for window clients that clients who come to Marvin's facility to buy, you know, wholesale, large, large purchases of windows are directed to this little thing that keeps them occupied for like 90 minutes or something. That's my guess. I don't know that, but it's a guess. And so this ad, if if that's the case is geared at people who already

want to go to war road minnesota in february or large window purchasers yeah or people just who hear that there's a contest and then don't listen to the rest and just assume it's something worth winning i guess i don't know wow war road minnesota is apparently the hometown of donna moss west wing character oh wait really the hometown of the fictional character not of jenna maloney yes yes okay so that's interesting and it's uh named war road because it well wikipedia says it seems to come maroney maroney maroney jenna maroney is the wait that's the character wait jenna you're janelle janelle maloney something like that is that it uh yeah donna moss wait we already said her name janelle maloney okay i was i got it yeah i got it did you

i don't know the name war road seems to come from the practice of Native American tribes using the location, which is now the town, as a route to war upon each other. War upon each other. That's a very literal name for a town. Can you do me a favor? Yeah. Can we listen to that ad again? Okay.

I'm going to play it too. What does it take to win? Strength. Endurance. Durability. You've going to play it too. What does it take to win? Strength, endurance, durability. You've got to be tough. And Integrity Tough Windows are just that. They outlast and outperform the competition. Learn more at IntegrityToughWindows.com and enter for a chance to win a VIP trip to Marvin's Manufacturing Facility in War Road, Minnesota.

A guided factory tour, free airfare, hotel, and meals. Only at IntegrityToughWindows.com. Goodness gracious. It's possible that the manufacturing facility is not the visitor center. In fact, you're... Yeah, you actually get to see the real

Marvin's that the people who go to the visitor center don't get to see. Yeah, behind the curtain, yeah. Alright, anyway. That's on Giant's radio broadcast? Yeah, behind the curtain, yeah. All right, anyway. That's on Giants Radio's broadcast station? Yeah, it's the sponsor of the Bruce Bochy show. Okay, well, weird one. Yeah, and also plays in the game, but yeah.

All right. I lived up to the billing. Thank you. Okay. All right, if anyone wins, let us know how War Road was. Okay, we're doing an email show, so I will begin with a question from Sean, who says, Obviously, the Cubs are the odds-on favorite to win the Central this year, and the Cardinals have been pretty dominant the last couple years, and neither team should see their window of dominance closing soon, given their organizational strengths.

On the other hand, the Pirates are generally considered a well-run organization. The Brewers have assembled one of the two best Farm systems in baseball in the span Of less than a year, and the Reds have Quietly made some pretty good moves, coupled With some luck with respect to player Development, Cozart in particular So my question is, who is

The next non-Cubs or Cardinals Team to win the NL Central? Hmm, well Look, once you get out past four or so years it's almost totally random other than you know other than the fundamentals of the franchise so let's see didn't i i recently did my projections for i did my projections for what like five years from now 10 years from now and like 50 years now or something let me see if i can find that see if i i have anything that sheds light on this but what yeah once you get past like four years i think it's almost almost

totally uh irrelevant what you think you know about the team now except for what you know about the franchise the city that it's in basically so given that do you think that there is a realistic answer for a team in the next three or four years or would you bet i guess would you bet even odds on the field uh the brewers the reds or the pirates winning one of the next four divisions yes you would okay so good then we have something to talk about here that's good one of the next four divisions? Yes. You would? Okay, so good. Then we have something to talk about here. That's good.

Okay. So of the three, who do you like in that most? Probably the Pirates and then the Brewers. I don't think there's really a reason to pick the Reds that I can think of. They are currently the worst, and they don't have the Brewers' farm system, and they don't have a way better market or ownership situation or anything. So probably the Reds would be the last on the list. But I think the Pirates, they've been good for a while too. They are are not bad now They have lots of good Young promising players

Locked up for a while so They'd be the best bet I think So I have the In 2017 I had the Cubs winning And the Cardinals in second In 2019 I have the Cardinals winning And the Cubs in second but tied With the Pirates

And in 2026 I had the Cubs winning and the cardinals in second with the brewers in third and these are all based on actual actual things that i put in but uh if you saw them you would see that there's also um a gag uh to it but i would am i being very ungenerous to the pirates to say that while still a good team, they're trending downward? Like it doesn't feel like next year is better than last year for them. And it doesn't feel like they've got like some big quick turnaround ready for us, does it? I might be being ungenerous. I mean, you know, they've developed good players in their smart team.

It's not like they've they haven't. Well, they suffered some brain drain recently. So that's relevant. Yes. I don't know. If I had to bet on them being better than this year, I think I I think I might. I think I might bet on that.

I thought they would be better than they've been this year in 2016. And they have a lot of talented young people who will be around for a while and in some cases have not even made the majors yet or have barely made the majors. So I think there's a good case to be made that their core that you could forecast for the next few years is about as good as anyone's. Yeah. They have the outfielders. They have good young pitchers.

They have Josh Bell. They've got a bunch of stuff. They have Austin Meadows. So there's a lot there. Yeah. All right. I have an easier time seeing the Brewers in 2019 than the Pirates. 2017, I consider it to be almost impossible to bet on any team but the Cardinals.

I mean, but the Cubs. Yeah, some team could win it, certainly, but there's no team you would consider betting. They are a greater than 50% chance next year. so i'm considering 2017 to be out of play uh and i don't know the further i go out the more i like the brewers i think uh and the less i yeah because the brewers just have this huge advantage of not having to try to win tomorrow's game and that's going to be probably true next year too maybe yeah and um you get to do a lot of things when you're not trying to win. Yeah. You get to do what the Cubs did. Yeah, exactly. Maybe you turn into the Cubs. Yeah. So I say the Brewers. And then once we get out past 2020, I like the

Brewers for fundamental reasons, just because of their market market i think they have a uh it's not a big market but it's a uh strong it's a fairly strong baseball market so didn't we say like exactly the opposite not that long ago we might have when we when we were uh talking about which teams would be the least likely to win a world series just yeah for the foreseeable future and i think we we picked the brewers i think we both did i think but just based on the fact that they were not good at the time and that was i think before their front office overhaul and before they started rebuilding the team and they're a fairly small market low payroll place and i don't know you may have acknowledged that they are while small passionate but still that it's not an advantage, I don't think.

Well, it's not. Wait, what do you mean it's not an advantage? They draw $3 million a year when they're pretty good. Yeah. That's it. They draw. I mean, they're like, to me, I link. They're not quite Seattle, but I link Milwaukee and Seattle together.

They are markets that draw well. Seattle has, maybe I shouldn't link them together, but when things are going fairly well, they draw well. They have good TV audiences, at least Seattle does, and they play up for that reason. And so, you know, I mean, look, Pittsburgh could win 100 games in a row, 100 games a year for the next six years, and they wouldn't draw $2.5 million. Whereas Milwaukee, 2008, 3. 2009, 3. 2010, 2.8.

2011, 3. 2012, 2.8. 2014, 2.8. That's a legit team. Yeah, okay. Oh, by the way, the Pirates drew 2.4986 last year. So I am almost correct in what I said. They did not manage to draw 2.5 million even after making the playoffs three years in a row. Yeah. So, well, I think

between the Pirates probably being competitive for at least the next couple of years and then by the time that maybe they're not or, you know knows if they will be the brewers probably will be you'd think so between those two things and then you know whatever the reds do i don't know what the reds will do but between all of that i think i would still probably take the three team field over the two current good teams over four years but I don't feel great about it. Yeah. Incidentally, the Reds haven't drawn $2.5 million since 2000, and they've only done it once in franchise history. And yet, pretty consistently outspend the Brewers on payroll.

At least they have recently, but maybe that's the point. Maybe they've been bad because they spent a lot of money chasing this window with Votto, Bailey, and Phillips. And it didn't work out. So maybe that's not so much a matter of what they can sustain. And maybe it's just they took a swing and they missed. All right. Next question. Oh, well, so did we answer that?

You said the Pirates. You said the Pirates. I say the Brewers. And he didn't ask for a time frame, so we don't did we answer that You said the pirates I say the brewers And He didn't ask for a time frame so we don't have to answer that Right okay Alright question from Vinit If you were a GM how much would you pay To have the metadata of every

Front office phone lines As in phone numbers they've dialed How long they were on the call etc At the least you'd be able to call Simple sales bluffs like, yeah, just got off the phone with AJ. Assume this is all legal. Number one, how much would you pay for it? If it's three days before the trade deadline, does the price go up substantially if it's full time? Two, what if you were promised that no other GM would have it or even know that you had it?

I would pay zero0 for this. To me, this feels like I would spend a lot more time trying to make sense of this metadata than would be helpful to me. And I would say that I would get more misinformation than good information. And I wouldn't want it. This would be information that I think would just clutter my life. And I would probably rather just, you know, follow MLB trade rumors and take all that with a grain of salt and do my own thing. Yeah, I mean, I can imagine certain scenarios where it might be

helpful right in the thick of it in the trade deadline. Of course, I mean, guys could be texting other teams or emailing other teams. And then I don't know whether that would be included in your data. So maybe that doesn't really help all that much. But if you were like in negotiations with some team and they were trying to use a third team as leverage and say, well, we just talked to these guys and they said this, and you could see that they hadn't talked to those people ever, then that might help. I don't know how often that actually happens that GMs are really outright bluffing slash lying like that. So I don't know. It also might not help, to be honest, because when you're making a deal with another party, you want to end up in a place where you both feel like you're winning.

And if you feel like you've got this big advantage over them, and if you don't have any kind of good faith in the negotiations with them, it might actually put you farther apart. And you might be so overconfident in your knowledge of what they're doing or you might do something that humiliates them and causes them to have to you know to not loot and want to lose face uh so it you know yeah you ought to be able to use it to your advantage but you probably would just screw it up because you suck yeah there are ways that this could probably steer you very wrong or just make you waste a lot of time and sounds like it would be helpful but the actual applications i mean would it be helpful to know like say you're going after a free agent or something and you can

see whether every team in baseball has called that guy's agent so you know for instance what if you're trying to decide whether to sign someone based on whether your number one division rival is also interested in signing that person and so you think if we sign him then not only do we get him but our number one rival doesn't Get him so we get to deprive Them of his services but you Could check the phone data and See whether there's actual Contact between those two camps

Would that help at all? Yeah I mean I don't know like I Could imagine you getting Hung up on AJ Preller's metadata And it being like Jeffy walking home From school and It would just be completely lost You getting hung up on AJ Preller's metadata and it being like Jeffy walking home from school. And he would just be completely lost. Right.

First Jeffy reference on the podcast, by the way. Yeah. So check that out. Not the first in our work. No, check that out. Ben, I have a question for you. Okay. How much, you are a baseball writer. Yeah.

Out for a living, you make money doing it. How much would you pay for it for you? And let's assume that you don't get, let's assume that the metadata that you get does not actually include the phone numbers because I don't want this to be how much would you pay for this Rolodex. I mean, you don't, yeah, otherwise you'd have,

well, how much, that's a separate question, but how much would you pay for the cell phone and direct office line of every GM and assistant GM? Forget that, just knowing this information but how much would you pay for the cell phone and direct office line of every GM and assistant GM? Forget that. Just knowing this information, how much would you pay? Huh. I guess not really that much because the only thing I could really do with it is construct imprecise trade rumors, right? I could say that Team X has been talking to Team Y, and that's about all I could do, really.

Has been talking to Team Y And that's about all I could do really I mean I Well yeah but how long If you had all that information how long until you're Ken Rosenthal I mean all of Because none of those rumors are really Basically reportable As they are but if you call up

Preller and Like if you you know slowly work your way in Where you're you know getting you're collecting some numbers And getting some contacts and you You know you have at some point you're collecting some numbers and getting some contacts. And at some point, you get Preller's cell phone number and you text him, heard you just got off the phone with Forced. Well, he thinks you're a player now. True. You're muscle.

True. If you do this every time, you are Oz, the great and powerful Oz. And eventually, he's just going to start Like he's going to be scared of you You're a witch He's going to give you anything you want Right? Yeah, I guess that's true They'll just figure you know anyway Because you somehow know who's talking to whom all the time

So yeah, I guess you could parlay it into Some actual interesting information So I'd try to expense that to my company For, I don't know, how much would I pay? Oh, come on. If someone came to you, if a kid came to you with this box and offered it to you for $35,000, would you take it? $35,000 and I get to know which front offices are calling Which other front offices Or I just get to know Who they're calling period

Or I just get to know front office Calling back and forth Every other front office phone line Every other front office phone line by the way So if The assistant GM is doing the trade talks We still know about it Not only that though

If the assistant GM is Wants to go see Star Trek With his buddy In the league office You're going to get that And you're going to wonder Did someone just get suspended You're going to be completely overwhelmed

This is going to be like Bruce Wayne with the God view thing You're going to go crazy You is going to be like, you know, Bruce Wayne with the God view thing, right? Yeah. You're going to go crazy. You're going to start like really losing your mind. Yeah. Well, I'd have to, I'd have to do some real filtering and I'd have to set it up so that I get alerts when a team calls a known number of another team or something like that. Otherwise, yeah, it would be insane and I wouldn't have the ability to process it.

It might take you months just to build a map of whose numbers are whose in every front office before you even knew who was talking to anybody else. Yeah, it would. It sounds like more trouble than it's worth. I don't want to know. This would be a full-time job. Yeah.

Yeah. All right. Okay. Question from Marcus. At what value of X should one cease to employ the term through an X hitter? I posit that it is four. That is, the term five hitter and above should not be used. Okay. Well, if it's a shutout, that's very different. You would never, right? If someone

says, if you hear that Justin Verlander threw an eight hitter, do you fill in, in your mind, A, complete game, B, complete game shutout? I do fill in the former. I think, would I fill in the latter? No, not necessarily. Okay. So my answer to Marcus is that I only use X hitter to refer to a complete game shutout. And I assume other people do too, probably wrongly. And therefore, hearing that someone threw a nine hitter isn't like bragging that he only allowed nine hits. It's just simple, basic, descriptive information. It provides context. You tell me a guy threw a shutout, I go, how good a shutout? And then you go, nine hitter. And I go, okay. So it's not bragging. It's just part of the story. But I am counting on people to use it only for shutouts.

So maybe I'm getting burned on that. Yeah, I think I've probably used it for non-shutouts or I don't know. I think I've heard it used for non-shutouts. But to otherwise answer his question, I would say that anything above two, I don't consider all that interesting. And I'm much more interested in seeing how many strikeouts and how few walks he had anyway. Yeah, I'd go three. I'd be interested in a three hitter, but that's probably about it. So that's basically Marcus is saying five and above. I'll say four and above, but I agree. Like it's not the only information I want to know ever, because if it's a three hitter with two strikeouts and four walks or something, well, I'd be impressed that he actually managed to do

that, but I wouldn't be that impressed with the performance. So it's always just part of the information that I want. All right. Play index. Sure. So this one is sort of by request. This is from Chris, who writes, Alex Bregman was called up last week, and through seven games, he has won for 28 with two walks. My father, who is an extreme Fairweather fan, has taken every opportunity to remind me that Alex Bregman isn't hitting well. I know there must be some precedent for a player not hitting in his first week,

so I subscribed to the Baseball Reference Play Index using the coupon code BEP, but I've not yet learned how to use the Play Index to find all the best players who didn't hit well to start their careers. How can I use the Play Index to prove that Alex Bregman isn't doomed to mediocrity after going one for 28 to start his career? And so I had to figure out the best way to try to answer this question. And so I simply did this. I looked for all players since 1901 who had rookie status intact and who played at least 50% of their... No, ignore the last part. Who had their rookie status intact, who batted at least 102 times in that season, who made an all-star game sometime in

their career, and I sorted by the smallest OPS plus in that season. So I basically wanted to see who had the worst early seasons in their careers among players who went on to be quite well. So Alex Bregman is far from the first player to have a bad start. There are lots of players, in fact, who were very, very bad and went on to be all-stars. It's hard to say anybody's been as bad as Bregman has. Bregman is now one for 32 after going 0 for 4 the day that Chris sent this. So he is one for 32. That is very bad, but it's only 32 plate appearances. Two balls could have blooped in or, or, you know, three or 10 or whatever. And I imagine that by the time he's got 102 plate appearances and qualifies for this list, he'll have more than one or even four hits. So how bad does he, or how good does he have to get? Well, there are 89 players in history who had an OPS plus of under 60 and in their rookie

year and went on to be all stars under 60 is really just horrifyingly bad. Like there are, there are like, there are years where nobody has an OPS plus. There are a lot of years, I think where nobody has an OPS plus under 60 and qualifies for the batting title. An OPS plus of 60 is, for instance, Rich Aurelia's 239, 295, 296. A 590 OPS. That's what he did. That's an OPS plus of 60. So there are 89 players who were that bad or worse and ended up being All-Stars.

And probably the, I don't know, the best comp for Chris's sake might be Troy Tulewitzki, who was, you know, similarly a top prospect, similarly a shortstop, similarly a very high draft pick, came up at a similar age. And in his rookie year, he had 108 plate appearances, or at least his one year that he had his rookie status in his first year. And he had 240, 318, 292 in Coors Field. So that's, you know, really very, very bad. All right. So now that that's out of the way, a few little notes and then a little story. I said 89 players have had an OPS plus under 60 and been an all-star in their career.

That is true, but only one has made the Hall of Fame. So that's maybe worse. And the one who did, Bobby Doerr, is a relatively fringe Hall of Famer, and he was almost 60. So he wasn't even near the bottom of these 89. So there might be something prohibitive about it if you're that low.

Probably not. Jose Fernandez, sorry, Jose Hernandez, is actually amazingly on this list twice, which I love. He managed to have 107 plate appearances in his first season. He hit 184, 208, 224. That's an OPS plus of 21. That is the second worst on this whole list. And then they basically sent him back down to the minors. He got traded a couple times. He disappeared for three years.

Came back in 1994 with his rookie status still intact. And that year he hit 242, 291, 326. And then ended up having a career, not a bad career. Made an all-star team and made, you want to guess how much money? He played 15 seasons, 1,600 games, 168 home runs, 14 war. 20 million. Yeah, pretty good, 18 million. All right.

So he's number two on the list, but the number one person on this list with an OPS plus of 13, 13. And by the way, remember the rule on play index, whatever I set the minimum plate appearances at the person at the far extreme is always going to have that exact number. Like not even one more. Amos Otis had exactly 102 played appearances. I set the minimum at 102. He had 102. He had an OPS plus of 13. He had 151, 202, 204. And Amos Otis is interesting to me for two reasons or maybe three or maybe more.

But one of the reasons he's interesting to me, and this will probably shock people who are just a couple of years older than me, I've never heard of him. And Amos Otis is like, he retired the year before I started collecting baseball cards. know their middle names. I know what they do in the off season. I know everything about them, but Amos Otis, because he retired one year before I started collecting cards and basically one year before I started following baseball, I haven't, I never heard of this guy, which is amazing. He was really good. And so, um, so Otis was, he's most known pro well, I don't know if he's most known, but one of the things he's known for is that he was traded by the New York Mets around the same time that they traded Nolan Ryan. And they got nothing back, you know, basically for Nolan Ryan, they got aging Jim Fregosi, and they got nothing back for Amos Otis. And so those are considered, or those were for Mets fans

considered the two worst trades in franchise history. They happened at roughly the same time. And Otis was, before this, he was one of the players that the New York Mets had deemed untouchable in trade. I don't know if the phrase untouchable existed before this. In the Sabre bio for Amos Otis, they refer to teams mocking the Mets for having so many players that they deemed untouchable. But Otis was a young guy. He was, you know, I guess something of a phenom if he was considered untouchable. They brought him up. And the Sabre Bio speculates that the pressure of being called untouchable before he came up might have had something to do with it.

But he came up. He batted 151 202 204 uh and uh and the mets uh seeing that uh traded him they traded him for some veteran third baseman who didn't do anything for them and the very next year otis was an all-star he was an all-star the next four years after that with the royals twice he finished in the top five in mvp voting four times he finished in the top five in MVP voting. Four times he finished in the top 10. Two-time gold glover, sorry, three-time gold glover. Played a premium position. Did a little bit of everything. Few instances of bold ink on his page and retired

after a very good career. 43 wins above replacement. So there it is, Chris. There's what you tell your dad. Don't panic. Don't start saying crazy things like he's a bust and they should trade him or anything like that. He is not doomed to mediocrity. It is only a few plate appearances and a lot of good prospects end up doing okay. Yeah. Alex Bregman, too, can one day be someone you haven't heard of. No, somebody hasn't heard of. You will have heard of him.

Yeah, you've already heard of him. Exactly. So't heard of. You will have heard of him. Yeah, you've already heard of him. Exactly. So I guess that's how you might forget him. Amos Otis might actually be, like, Amos Otis is probably close to the best player in baseball history that I've never heard of. Yeah, I've heard of him. I don't know that much about him. I know he was on the Royals and was like a speedy outfielder type, but that's all I know. Yeah, that's exactly right. All right. Play index, coupon code BP,

use it when you subscribe, get the discounted price of $30 on one year subscription. All right. Question from Brad. He says, I'm a huge Blue Jays fan. And now post-deadline, it's been confirmed that Aaron Sanchez will become a reliever. Currently, he sits at 139 and a third innings, and assuming the Jays keep their word, he will get to roughly 160 to 180, let's say 170 for argument's sake. My question is twofold. If he is sent to the pen, what does he have to do statistically in order to stay in the Cy Young conversation or obtain a vote or two?

And two, if you think there is nothing he could do in the pen to keep him Cy Young relevant if he goes that early, how long do you think he would need to stay in the rotation to get any Cy Young consideration? And I will just note that John Gibbons sort of made this murkier right before we recorded. He made some comments about they're still debating what's going to happen and nothing's locked in stone. And it seemed to kind of conflict what Ross Atkins had said earlier this week or what Mark Shapiro had also said earlier this week. So not for sure, but let's assume that it's true. It's so interesting because let's say he throws 20 more innings as a reliever. Let's say he threw 20 more innings as a starter, and then they just shut him down.

They did what the Nationals did with Strasburg, and they just shut him down, okay? He would get zero Cy Young votes. But if he throws the same 20 innings, but now he's a closer, But if he throws the same 20 innings but now he's a closer and he has, say, 0.6 ERA as a reliever and gets 14 saves, I would bet he wins it. He'll get that John Smoltz bump. That's exactly what I was thinking. It was funny. I was looking for information on this before and there was an article, you know, John Smoltz does not approve of Aaron Sanchez's move to the bullpen. And he, you know, did some,

he said some things about how it wouldn't have happened in his day or whatever. And I was thinking that, yeah, I mean, if he did the John Smoltz, it might very well work out the way it did for John Smoltz, where he's a hall of famer, you know, ahead of guys who really have better stats in some ways Because he was great at relieving And great at starting And so if Aaron Sanchez did both in the same season

Then I think he might have an even Stronger case than if he just Stayed in the rotation and kept pitching As well as he has to this point But I think they also said that if he does move to the pen He will not be the closer And Osuna will still be the closer And he'll be some sort of fireman of some kind, but probably won't be getting saves. So, but I had the same thought that it would probably help his case.

Will it help his case if he's not getting saves? Like maybe if they really did use him in a creative way and he stood out from the pack because he was coming in in the sixth inning or something when there were really high leverage situations and, you know, if the Blue Jays win the division by a game or something and Aaron Sanchez is the reason why they do that because of his bullpen work, maybe. But I think he'd probably still be better Off just starting every five days So Wade Davis got When Wade Davis was a pure setup man In 2014 he had an ERA Of one and he finished Eighth in Cy Young voting the next year he Was a closer at least for the second half

And had a.94 ERA and finished sixth so That's a negligible difference the voters Did not seem to reward the saves. I feel like they would reward the saves in that I can't really think of many setup men who got any consideration at all. But then I just looked up Wade Davis to confirm that and I see counter evidence. So maybe he would. I would not, by the way, hold it against Sanchez. I mean, if he threw 200 innings of it, of being, if I thought he was the best pitcher in baseball,

over 200 innings, I would vote for him over a guy that I thought was equally as good over 160 innings. But I am of the philosophy that Cy Young is not a value stat, not a value award. It's for the best pitcher. And you can be the best pitcher even if for some reason in or out of your control, you don't throw enough innings. That requires figuring out squishy definitions. And, you know, I wouldn't give it to a guy who was really awesome for, like, I wouldn't have given it to Rich Hill last year, for instance. But, like, I thought that Chris Medlin was robbed the year that he was, I thought, the best pitcher in the league for a non-complete season. I think I might be the only person who thinks that. Yeah, I mean, I don't know how great a case Aaron Sanchez has anyway.

If he finished the season pitching the way that he has thus far, I think he's a very good pitcher. I think he's maybe a top 15 pitcher or something like that. I don't know if he's a top of the league pitcher. Yeah, but for your voting, that's probably true. But I think if Sanchez finished the year as he is right now I think he would win it Like he's 11-1 and he leads the league in ERA And that's not how I would vote But I think those carry more weight Than anything else

And particularly if you have a very flashy Win-loss record It carries weight So I don't think 19 gets you all that big a bonus But I think 20 does And I don't think going Say you all that big a bonus, but I think 20 does. And I don't think going, say, 15 and 4 does much for you. But if you go 16 and 2, I think that it sticks out. And leading the league in ERA.

And who else is there? Rich Hill. I guess Rich Hill can't win anymore. He could. That trade really spoiled his Cy Young chances. Yeah. I think he would have been the favorite. Sanchez?

Yeah, I think so. Do you have any opinion on the decision to move him, or do you just kind of default to no one knows anything with these starter sit decisions with young guys and their innings limits? I mean, if he can start in October, then I support whatever they do. If he can't start in October, I think that they messed up along the way. Yeah, it would be hard to ask him to. I mean, I know he's already gone back and forth and changed roles multiple times, but it'd be tough if he went to the bullpen now and then had to start again. I don't think it would be. I mean, don't think it's long enough for him to

Atrophy No I think 10 days before his first postseason start You have him start and he goes 3 innings And then the next time you have him start and he goes 5 innings And then you have him on a Maybe an 80 or 90 pitch count for the first postseason start And then he's back Okay

Alright last one from Steve He says I recently heard someone reiterate Ted Williams's supposed quote about the hardest activity in sports being hitting a round ball with a round bat. I also realized that I didn't really have any idea what this line is supposed to mean. ball and a round bat seems equally difficult, especially when considering that a baseball's roundness plays an important role in where and how far the ball travels. I imagine. I don't know anything about physics. Similarly, it seems nearly impossible to hit with any effectiveness using a square bat against a round ball, or a square ball for that matter. Anyway, what was Williams, and what are the people who quote him, trying to convey with this adage? Can we do better as a sport in coming up with a shorthand for describing what it requires to succeed as a hitter?

Ben, I'm looking at the AL leaders for baseball reference war right now for pitchers. Okay. I want you to guess five names, and I bet you don't get two. Stephen Wright? Nope. Is he up there? Nope. Sale's probably not there, right?

Nope. He's eighth. He's eighth. Oh, well, how about his rotation mate, Jose Quintana? He's number one. Oh, he's number one. Wow. He's number one, yeah.

All right. Verlander? He's tied for number five. So I can either give it to you or not. I'd have to see the rounding. Take one more guess. I'll give it to you. So you got it.

Take one more guess. Man, it's kind of a weak, it's a pretty weak crop, I guess. Just thinking of it, it seems like all the notable pitchers are. I'll just tell you. Yeah, I'll tell you. So these are the top 10. Quintana, Chris Tillman, Cole Hamels, Fulmer, Verlander, Kluber, Sanchez, Sale, Salazar, and Colby Lewis. There's no Cy Young vote there.

I mean, like, nobody's going to know how to vote. So, yeah, I think Aaron Sanchez would have been the favorite for that reason. Yeah, maybe so. I hate the round ball, round bat because it's just – I have always envisioned trying to hit a square ball and it's just so dumb you know what's really hard ben you know it's really hard hitting a round ball with a two inch blade at the base of a three foot uh you know sliver of a shaft like hitting a golf ball it like the shape you can't even describe it it's not it's not round it's like you how do you like how do you even describe that and you're hitting it you're getting like well that's the ball is dimpled but the iron a set like what's

the shape of a seven iron for goodness sake the shape is irrelevant. Look, hitting a baseball, you don't need to say how hard it is. Everybody's tried it. So you go hitting a baseball is exactly as hard as you remember. That's how hard it is. Hitting a golf ball, well, that's as hard as you remember it too, because you've probably tried it. Hitting a tennis ball is hard as you remember to do. They're all hard in the sense that other people who are better than you at it are doing it better than you. That's what's hard about it. None of these things are intrinsically hard. Hitting a round ball with a round bat is easy.

You know who can do it, Ben? My five-year-old daughter can do it. She doesn't do it very well. I crush her at it. It's not the roundness that thwarts her. It's my physical superiority over her in every way. It is my size, technique, and sophistication that crushes her. It's not the roundness of either the ball nor the bat. And Ted Williams was really pretty good at it. So if anybody is a unreliable messenger of this message,

it's Ted Williams. Yeah, I would say, I mean, I don't know, maybe I'm wrong about this. But for me, I mean, my memories of trying to hit a golf ball were just much more frustrating experiences than trying to hit a baseball with a bat. Maybe that's because I just started hitting baseballs with bats when I was very young and I don't even remember my many failures. And by the time I tried to hit a golf ball, I was old enough that I expected to succeed at things when I tried them and I failed utterly with the golf ball. So maybe that's why.

But it was such a small ball. It's a small ball. Trying to hit a very small ball with a not round object is also very hard it's also a very small target yeah right so i agree i don't really like the round ball round bat interesting thing is if you google round ball round bat the first two people that quote is attributed to are not Ted Williams. So you have the first result. Benjamin Franklin and Mark Twain. Yeah. The first result is Pete Rose. It's a round ball and a round bat and you got to hit it square. And then next result, they give you

a round bat and they throw you a round ball and they tell you to hit it square. And that one's Willie Stargell. and then after those two you get to ted williams so i guess just anyone who says it then gets credit for saying it in a slightly different way but i mean it's really again it's the movement is what makes it hard it a baseball moves in ways yeah right the speed and the movement make it very hard to hit a baseball and um yeah it's somebody thought that the, I guess maybe they were right, but somebody thought that the, and you got to hit it square made this some incredible witticism. And so it, it caught on. It doesn't actually describe what

makes baseball hard though. Like it has nothing to do with the actual experience of failing at baseball, you know, which we've all lived through. Yeah, right. So I agree. I think maybe it's to just distinguish that. I mean, the fact that it's a round bat makes it slightly harder. I mean, if it were not a round bat, it would be easier. I think there was a brief time in baseball history where they used flat faced bats and they stopped because it was working too well, I think. But that is not the main part of it. The main thing that makes it so hard is that the ball's going really fast and it's moving and you don't know where it's going to be and all these other factors. It might kill you. It might kill you. Yeah, that's one too. So, yeah, I mean, Ted Williams knew a lot about hitting, but this is not my go-to quote for why hitting is hard.

Yeah. All right, so that is it for today. All right. You can support the podcast on Patreon by going to patreon.com slash effectivelywild. Today's five listeners who have already pledged their support are Jim Beatles, Jason Shin, Asa Beal, Timothy Cullen, and Andrew Abbott. 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. Check out our website at theonlyrulesithastowork.com for more information, and please leave us a review on Amazon and Goodreads if you like the book. You can join our Facebook group at facebook.com slash groups slash effectively wild. And you can rate and review and subscribe to the podcast on iTunes. Send us emails for the next email show at podcast at baseball perspectives dot com or by messaging us through Patreon. We'll be back soon.

Can't you see the proper just flying over you? Made back bumper stickery. What we're over do. Jay is chilling. Yeah, he is chilling. What more can I say we killing them hold up before we end this campaign as you can see we don't body the damn lambs lord please let them accept the things they can't change and pray that all of their pain be champagne