Effectively Wild: A FanGraphs Baseball Podcast - Effectively Wild Episode 944: How Many Barry Bondses?

Episode Date: August 24, 2016

Ben and Sam banter about Rich Hill and Dylan Stoops, then answer listener emails about Collin McHugh, stacking rosters with clones of Barry Bonds, diving into first base, Dylan Bundy and Ervin Santana, and more.

What does it mean? What does it mean? It's meant to be. Wild the wall. Wild the sea. Not for nothing, but it ain't nothing for us to debunk this club right now. I think the coast is clear. Let's go. Leave our coaching beers. Let's go. Leave your girlfriends here. Let's go. Leave your hopes and fears. Let's go. What you scared for? Let go, let go, let go, let go. Hello and welcome to episode 944 of Effectively Wild, the daily podcast from Baseball Perspectus, presented by our Patreon supporters and Playindex at BaseballReference.com. I'm Ben Lindberg of The Ringer, joined by Sam Miller of Baseball Perspectus. Hello.

Heyo. Happy Rich Hill Dodgers debut day. I've heard that before. How many... Yeah, we'll see. It feels like I've seen a Rich Hill is doing something tweet every other day since he got traded. And then a Rich Hill is not going to do that thing, tweet the next day every single time.

So mostly what he's doing is tending to his blister. It's occupying much of his time. Yeah. But hopefully not for much longer. Yep. How are you? I'm okay. Did you? No blisters? his blister. It's occupying much of his time. Yeah. But hopefully not for much longer. Yep. How are you? I'm okay. No blisters?

No blisters. Did you get my G chat about Dylan Stoops? Oh, yes. I did see this. Yes. I made plans to go watch a ball game with Wilson Caraman from the Baseball Perspectives Prospect team. And just by geography and scheduling, I happened to plan to go to the game in Rancho Cucamonga tonight, Wednesday, August 24th, my first minor league game of the year.

And it just so happens that Dylan Stoops is making his affiliated debut. sheet for the Sonoma Stompers last year, who is one of our very favorite people on the team and also one of our very favorite players on the team and who has since been signed by the San Diego Padres, assigned to their high A affiliate in Lake Elsinore, and making his debut tonight at the game that I was already scheduled to go to. It is amazing. I don't know what to make of this coincidence. What are the odds? I guess we could figure out what the odds are. How many minor league games are there in a season? I don't know. A lot, but. Probably 20,000, maybe 20,000-ish.

Probably a little less because short season. It's got to be less. Well, I don't know. There's 2,430 major league games. And every team has, you know, depending on what you consider an affiliate, six to eight affiliates. Again, depending on definition. Some of those are short season but if you multiply 24 30 by 7 then you get you know roughly 15 000 of course we could probably just limit the denominator to minor league games in california that you could attend which is still a pretty big number well

he had to be he had to be assigned he had to be assigned there there's only one there's only one league in my geography the cal league is the only league that is within driving distance of me. So he had to be assigned to the one league. Yeah, well, if people want to read more about Dylan Stoops' story, I posted a Facebook story about it and tweeted a link to it. So it's an interesting story, and we'll probably have him and Santos Saldivar, our two Stompers signees in Affiliated Ball now, on the podcast at the end of their seasons to talk about their rookie years. But it's a fun story, and it's even better that you get to go.

So I'm jealous. Say hello to Stoops for me. I will. All right. So we're doing an email show. Anything else to discuss? Nope. Okay.

Well, we got an email about something that happened last week that we didn't get to discuss because we recorded Monday's show early. Nope. then be replaced without getting an out. I'm too lazy to go back, but I think the answer was six, but four for a rookie. Last night, this was last week, the Astros and Orioles played, and Colin McHugh gave up four home runs before recording an out. I guess this supports y'all's theory, I guess. And the actual sequence of events in this game was, it was the first inning, And Colin McHugh is on the mound So the play-by-play went Adam Jones home run Hyunsoo Kim single

Manny Machado home run Chris Davis home run Mark Trumbo home run The Orioles hit a lot of home runs They hit four in five batters against McHugh Before he recorded an out And then there was a coaching visit to the mound And then he

got out of the inning without giving up any more runs. And Story actually had a happy ending because the Orioles starter, Wade Miley, was even worse. I guess it's not a happy ending for Wade Miley. It's exactly as happy as every other game. Yeah. For Colin McHugh, it was happy because he didn't take the loss. And the Astros actually ended up winning by seven runs, and he stayed in for a couple more innings and only gave up a couple more runs. So it wasn't quite as disastrous as the start, but the beginning of that game was as disastrous as they come. So did that make you rethink your opinions on how bad a pitcher could be at the beginning of a game

without getting replaced? Well, to some degree, the length of time it took for him to get a visit does. It makes me think longer. But my answer was really hinged on the idea that a record was being pursued and broken. I chose four for a rookie and five for a veteran because I would think that a rookie or young pitcher, the manager would want to avoid having him set a shameful record and that a veteran might be allowed to set it, would be allowed to set it in these circumstances. But once that is done, would not be allowed to extend it. Like five would be enough. So it's really impossible to compare this to that because the single in the middle kept McHugh from reaching record territory. However, it does seem like a lot of batters before a visit to the mound.

I maybe would have guessed that he would have gotten a visit one batter earlier, maybe two, maybe two batters earlier. Because it's the beginning of the game. If you go home run, single home run, why not? Why not use that visit? I mean, you're not probably going to, you don't need to save that visit for anything. And you might just go out there and say, hey, take a deep breath. It's a long game and all that because it's the beginning of the game.

So I guess I'm surprised that there wasn't a visit, maybe even two batters earlier. So maybe that would extend my guess a little bit more. Uh-huh. I was in a car, so I wasn't watching or listening. I don't know whether the Astros had anyone up. That would be an interesting thing to know, whether after the third consecutive homer and fourth of the inning,

someone started warming when the coaching visit happened. I'd be interested to know that if anyone can fill me in. But yeah, I don't think it dramatically changes what we were thinking. Yeah. Randy Johnson once allowed eight homers in a game. Wow. In 2008. No, I'm sorry. No, sorry. He didn't. He didn't. Total lie. Who's been spreading that?

Wow. Yeah. That's not a nice thing to say about Randy Johnson Never happened It's not even close to true Alright, let's take a question From Andrew Patrick Patreon supporter who says Let's say you run a team filled entirely With league average players And you're given the unique and magical option

Of replacing as many of those players As you like with Barry Bonds How many Barry's do you take Where do they play where do you hit them In the order and how many games does the Team win alright so Andrew I replied to Andrew To clarify he doesn't say what

Year Barry Bonds were talking about and It is currently 2016 and the answer For a 2016 Barry Bonds would be very Different than if he said peak Barry Bonds So I would encourage us to answer this question three times. One is for 1993 Barry Bonds, when he was clearly the best player in baseball and also young and sprightly and fast. And then let's say 2004 Barry Bonds, when he was clearly the best hitter in baseball,

maybe in history, but very defensively limited. And then 2016 Barry Bonds, which who knows. But we also have to, I guess I didn't ask Andrew to clarify when he says team is made up entirely of league average players. I can't imagine a team with 25 to win players on it. I can't imagine a team with 25 two-win players on it. So even if he means, I will take that to mean that every starting position player and every member of the rotation is roughly a two-win player. Every bench player is basically what you would think of as an average bench player. In other words, a little bit better than a replacement level.

And then relievers we'll call one win players. Okay. All right. So let's start with 2016 Barry Bonds on this team. Does Barry Bonds have a role? And we'll assume that Barry Bonds doesn't have to start doing this tomorrow that he can work out, go to extended or go to, you know, the complex and get in baseball shape and do, you know, a little quick tour through the minors and get his timing down. Yeah, well, obviously, if I were watching this game as a fan, I would want at least one Barry Bonds just to see what Barry Bonds could do. If I were doing it solely as a talent evaluator, though, obviously, you don't replace any pitcher spots with barry bonds you can't really even replace say you know your utility guy or something with barry bonds because at this point i mean he is he's a lot less bulky than he was last time we saw him you know why right but he probably is in no condition to be a defensive replacement at any position.

So it's basically if you're an AL team, you could consider DHing him, and if you're not, then maybe you use him as a pinch hitter off the bench. That's basically the only roles you could even consider 50-year-old Barry Bonds for, or however old he is. So probably if you were just Approaching this as Will you win more games The answer is zero Barry Bonds

Yeah the question is Could he hit the way that Jim Tomey hit At the end of his career Because he would be the Jim Tomey role Tomey was a 112 OPS plus guy In his last year And then was asked not to return So I wouldn't

Bet on Barry Bonds hitting that well Right now so I agree Zero zero Barry Bonds is Right maximum maximum Of one and I would not count on it Adding much no even Even in an optimistic scenario Even even if Barry Bonds is better than

We're giving him credit for I don't Think you could use him in a role that would add more than a couple of runs Agreed, sadly Alright, 2004 Barry Bonds Okay, so I'm going to say that he was so great on offense That you definitely stick him in both corner outfield spots He DHs if you have a DH Any bench hitter you have who is primarily a hitter

he obviously replaces which is probably at this stage in the sport only one guy yeah unless you but however you might consider it worthwhile to build the rest of your bench with extreme utility like guys who can basically play all eight positions so that you can have an extra berry bonds right okay maybe so like maybe your catcher is also your backup shortstop and can play left field and all that and so maybe you can squeeze two berry bonds is on your bench okay Okay. So that's without changing your pitcher-batter ratio. So we're up to... So that's four Barry Bonds, maybe five if you have a DH.

Five if you have a DH. You're not putting him at first? Yeah, sure. You should put him at first too. If you do it. Five or six Barry Bonds. You wouldn't put him in center? I mean, you probably should put him in center.

I would think at that age... What were his defensive stats in would think at that age What were his defensive stats In like left field Yeah he was a minus 8 defender In left field So let's be very very Cruel and call him a minus 40 defender in center

Which is not how you would normally do The position by position adjustments But let's just do it Let's call him minus 40 we could call him minus 50 if you call him a minus 50 he's still a five win player yeah and well then you can start right so then you start playing that game with every position so could barry bonds just stand at third base and as a better than a negative 50 yeah i mean fewer opportunities fewer opportunities to screw up of course he's even less familiar with the position and it requires quick reactions

and he's left-handed and he's left-handed so could you get could you see him going to minus 75 as a third baseman i mean i could see a minus 75 third baseman if they're just abusing him with bunts yeah that would happen too yeah i mean he was still he was old he was he was still in the lineup almost every day and he had six steals that year and only got caught once yeah so he wasn't like totally totally mobile course, if he had been playing in the field every day at demanding positions, who knows if he would have broken down. But I mean, he was just such a transcendent hitter at that point. How many runs does a lineup of nine Barry Bonses score? 2004 Bonses with a 1400 OPS. Should I put it into the budget lineup generator machine?

Yeah, sure. The baseball musings tool. All right, hang on. So we've got, what are we going for here? We've got 609, 812. Yep. 812. 609!

609! A whole lineup all right here we go a lineup of nine barry bonzes according to baseball musings lineup analysis would score 13.4 runs a game all right so then you could afford to give up like eight runs a game and you'd beat everyone most of the time well if you yeah you could i mean you'd be you'd win 125 games yes i think if you did that so the question is how bad could a babbit be in your fip a you know if you could put together a team with a fip of four, how bad could the BABIP be and still have the ERA or the runs allowed be lower than eight? And only what? So two-thirds, roughly, not even two-thirds of play appearances end up with a ball in play, even less when you

take into account home runs. So like a huge portion of your pitching staff would be the same as it always was fly balls you should be okay on you know the gappers are going to hurt you anything that requires running but a lot of plays are obvious so i guess part of the question is could bonds play at all credible in field like at all like could would a ground would ground ball babbitt go to like 650 or something like that which seems possible i mean if you have four left-handed 40 year old barry bonds is playing in the infield yeah i'm not sure i go i don't go there i don't think i go there i think i stick with right center and left although if you have two barry bonds is then the penalty of having a berry

bonds in center is even greater like you probably should just go get some very speedy no hit guy who can overlap with the traditional left and right field coverage areas a little bit yeah maybe maybe you can get away with one berry bonds in the infield if you have you know if you get if you go defense on this I don't know I think I go um I think I go seven Barry Bonds is six if six if not the bat at catcher oh man you Barry Bonds ain't gonna catch he doesn't have to move that much oh that's right I had Barry Bonds in my lineup analysis as the catcher, but that's not going to happen. Not doing that. I go six, seven if it's a DH. And then the question is, is there a benefit to having one extra Barry Bonds on your bench instead of your left-handed reliever or your long man or something

like that? Yeah. Well, at this point, you already have as many Barry Bonds on your bench as you do non-Barry Bonds in the lineup, right? Or close. Well, yeah, but the pitcher's spot comes up. Oh, we're doing DH League. If you're doing DH League, then the pitcher's spot, I guess, doesn't matter. And you can't really pinch hit for any of your position players very much because you have limited your bench.

You only have two other non-Bonsas on the bench. So yeah, I guess you're right. But you want to rest some of those berry bonzes oh that's true he's a 40 year old bond so he can't play 162 games just to keep the bonds is fresh and to make sure that you have a bonds when a bond get hurt gets hurt that would probably be worth sacrificing at least one reliever, maybe more. Yeah.

Yeah, and you're going to need a bigger bench. Yeah, you need some backup Bonzes. Yeah. So I'm saying you go 10-man pitching staff, six Barry Bonzes, seven if it's a DH league, and then you keep all the other normal bench guys that you would have. Uh-huh. Okay.

So what's our grand total of Bonds'? Seven. Seven Barry Bonds'. All right. All right. Now, 93. 93 Barry Bonds'. So you're no longer getting quite the same level of hitter.

However, Barry Bonds' in 93 had a 206 OPS+, which is basically Bryce Harper of last year. He hit 336 458 677 And he was A 10 win player Who was Only slightly worse than 2004 Bonds As an overall player

As a hitter he was worse But you now have a guy who Also stole 29 Bases and had 40 Steal seasons of him, who was considered an elite defender, one of the greats. Other than his arm, one of the greats of all time at his position. Best hitter in the majors, MVP, gold glove, all of that, all the awards. And so now can you make a case that he is every position, let's put catcher aside, but every position except catcher? Yeah, I mean, this is 28-year-old Barry Bonds, still fairly fleet of foot.

So I would think that you could convert Barry Bonds into, obviously he plays center. You could convert him into, I mean, I might have him everywhere other than catcher and maybe shortstop. Yeah. Is there any chance? And then he, he is every, he's every bench spot, but is he also your backup shortstop? I mean, you don't want him there every day, but is he good enough that he can be your backup? I mean, yeah, sure. I don't know. There's no way to say really, but yeah, I mean, he was extremely athletic and mobile, so I'd try it. Does he replace any of your pitchers? Like, is he actually, like actually as a pitcher? Do you, would you rather have a team with Barry Bonds as your pitcher?

No. Me neither. It's only 9.4 runs a game huh that's a shame yeah can you win with uh scoring 9.4 runs a game if you've got barry bonds is at all positions i mean you know even if barry bonds is a uh even if he's very good at fielding ground balls even if he's very smart he's still left handed and doesn't have a good arm yeah i might i think i'm keeping a shortstop yes i'm definitely keeping a shortstop okay i Think i'm keeping one other infielder and maybe maybe a second baseman and i'm swapping him based On handedness of the batter okay sure so a super utility type guy and you're starting shortstop And then you still want all the bonzes on the bench, and you probably still want to sacrifice a reliever to have backup Bonzes. So how many Bonzes are we talking now?

11. 11 or 12. Yeah. Okay. So that's the definitive answer. Okay. How many Barry Bonzes you would want at each stage of his career. All right.

Question from Gary. For years now, every time we see a runner dive into first base to beat a throw, we're told by the broadcasters that despite the illusion that it is faster, diving across first base versus just running as fast as you can actually slows the runner down. But now we have Olympic runner Shawnee Miller, who narrowly beats a foot runner by diving across the finish line to win a gold medal. Does this disprove the baseball broadcaster's adage? This was one of those famous Olympics images of her angled forward and breaking the finish line while everyone else was just a hair behind her and standing straight up. And I don't think this affects anything about the baseball calculus.

anything about the baseball calculus. I think my understanding of the diving into first base issue, and it seems like there's still considerable debate about this, is that you can, if you execute it perfectly, help yourself, but you're unlikely to execute it absolutely perfectly because you have to dive, you have to slide, you will probably hit the ground before you have to, and that will slow you down and it'd be faster just to keep running and not break your momentum. So I don't think this has any bearing on the baseball example because in this case, she didn't have to reach down and touch a particular thing. She just had to break the finish line with some part of her body. And I'm not even sure whether she was intentionally diving or just exhaustedly

collapsing at the end of the race. But I think if getting to first base worked like track and field and you just had to cross the plane of the base instead of touching the base with some part of your body, then I think diving or at least leaning forward would make sense. So I don't think it's quite analogous, and I don't think baseball players should be following the Sean A. Miller example if they weren't planning to before. Yeah, there are various video experiments on the internet, including I think Mythbusters and I think maybe ESPN. as evidence, but anybody who has played tag can, of course, recall diving for a person,

which is the same basic idea. And really even diving for a fly ball is to some degree, the same basic idea. It's that diving for a spot low on the ground is not faster than running through it, I think. Yeah. Right. Okay. Play index? Sure. Let's see. This was inspired by Cat Garcia's piece today about Justin Verlander at Baseball Perspectives. And Verlander had a fairly normal career arc for an ace. He was really great. He was strong and he threw hard and he had great seasons. And then some physical problems struck him. He lost a little bit of his dominance. He lost a little bit of his dominance.

He lost a little bit of his velocity. And that's a normal career. And then suddenly he got good again. And he now seems like he might, we don't know, he's a pitcher, but he seems like he might be poised to have a very good 30s as well as his very good 20s. And I'm always very interested by looking at players as having two careers, their pre-30s and their post-30s.

And as we talked about with Raul Ibanez a long time ago, I'm fascinated by Raul Ibanez's career because he was essentially a Hall of Famer if baseball started at 30. If everybody's career started at 30, Raul Ibanez would be remembered as one of the 30 or 40 greatest players of all time. And Omar Vizquel would be remembered as one of the greatest players of all time. And of course, Randy Johnson is one of the greatest pitchers of all time. But if careers ended at 30, Randy Johnson would not have been remembered as one of the greatest players of all time. And Mariano Rivera and so on. So I was curious about the top players ever through 29 and the top players ever after 30

and how much overlap there is between them. So I basically went to Play Index and looked at career war totals through 29, career war totals after 30 for hitters, and then did the same for pitchers career war totals after 30 for hitters and then did the same for pitchers and lined them up to see how much overlap there is. So I am going to ask you, first, do you think that there is greater overlap for hitters or pitchers? And before you answer, I will make the quick case for either. The case for hitters, of course, is that they have much more predictable career arcs, generally speaking. They don't tend to blow out their elbow at 28 and be terrible forever. On the other hand, they very predictably decline.

And the feeling I have anecdotally is that you have fewer sort of outliers of the, you know, Roger Clemens, Randy Johnson, Andy Pettit mold, where they keep pitching at the same level. Like you don't have to decline as a pitcher. It basically, if you adjust, if you make the necessary adjustments, if you manage to keep your elbow from snapping, you don't really need to have a decline until much later. Whereas hitters pretty much almost all decline on a fairly predictable arc. So which one has more overlap? I'm going to go with hitters. You are correct. All right. All right. There you go.

There are, well, I'm not going to tell you how many there are. Second question, how many of the top 200 hitters of all time through age 29 do you think were also top 200 hitters all time from 30 on? That's interesting. I wrote earlier this week about Adrian Beltre, and he's a guy who has kind of turned himself into a no-doubt Hall of Fame candidate, or at least what should be a no doubt Hall of Fame candidate after age 30. And no one really talked about him as one before age 30. And yet, he was, I believe, 72nd all time through his age 29 season, something like that. And he's been like 14th all time after that, or, you know, from age 30 to 37 37 so he has been much better but he was still certainly among the top 200 actually among the top 100 so yeah 72 and 22 by baseball reference 72nd 72nd best player ever through 29 helps that he started early helps that he had consistently good defense that was overlooked but uh yeah an all-time great He was like through 29, he was wedged in

between, you know, Rod Carew and Derek Jeter and just behind Jeff Bagwell and just ahead of Chipper Jones. Right. And no one really thought of him in their class at the time. And so I'm guessing that even players we think of as great post-30 performers maybe were better before 30 than we thought they were. You want to try this on any other? You want to ask me about any others? All right. So I'm guessing how many of the 200 post-30 are also in the 200 pre-30? I'll say 130. 130. Way, way off. It's 82. And now to some degree, this is a little bit of an artificially low number because guys like Andrew McCutcheon, Dustin Pedroia have not played out their 30s yet and might still make it. But we're talking, that's a fairly small handful of players on this list. Otherwise it's 82. So about 40%, call it somewhere between

40 and 50% of the top 200 players will be great. Obviously, much less great there. To get on the top 200 through age 29 requires 30 wins. And that would be Paul Molitor is the bottom of that list. To get on the top 200 after 30 requires only 21 wins. And that would be like Gary Carter or even BJ Surhoff. So 82 to date. All right. So then what about the same question for pitchers? What percentage of top 200 pitchers? Hmm.

Then for pitchers, I'll say 25%. It is 67. And so it's about 35%. Okay. So it's actually pretty close. Not that much different. No, not that much difference. One thing that is different is that the ratio of post 30 war for hitters, sorry, pre 30

war to post 30 war for hitters is higher than it is for pitchers. The top 200 pitchers after 30 are pretty close to just as good as the top 200 pre-30 pitchers. Whereas for hitters, there's a pretty big difference between those kinds of careers. All right. Anything else you want to know? Because I find these lists to be very interesting to eyeball, but I don't have a, I don't know what would be interesting and I don't have, I haven't really narrowed down what I find interesting enough to share. One thing that is interesting is that if you were just looking, like Babe Ruth is number five all time pre-30 and number four all time post-30. Partly this is because he was a pitcher

early in his career and that war is not included on this. And he also ended his career earlier than a lot of these guys who kept playing much later. But all the same, Babe Ruth was not, he's number one all time for war, I believe. Maybe, I think. Maybe he's number two now. But he is not number one for either of these. He's five and four. And if you look at the pitchers, the closest comparable is Roger Clemens, who is number three before 30 and number four after 30. And just by that standard, you could, I mean, Roger Clemens is close to the Babe Ruth of pitching. Roger Clemens is really, has a unbelievable career compared to pretty much every other pitcher when you look at it this way. There's really nobody else who comes close to being that high for both decades.

You have a lot of pitchers who were unbelievably great for 10 years and are very high on one of these lists, like Randy Johnson, like Pedro Martinez. But the other half, they just aren't that good. You see a lot bigger discrepancy. But Roger Clemens was a top five player before 30 and a top five player after 30. And he's really the only pitcher and Walter Johnson, two guys who were great, obviously, but also pitched at a time when things were completely different. And you just threw way more games than pitchers do today. And so you had more opportunities to rack up wins above replacement, whereas Babe Ruth was mostly just a hitter. I mean, his pitching added to that also, but it's not as if he was, after he stopped pitching regularly, used in some dramatically different way than players are today. He was just that much better than everyone else. Randy Johnson, as we talked about in another episode, is number one all time after 30. And I was shocked by how close number two is to him. We might've even talked about, I might've been shocked at the time that we talked about it, but he's got a pretty big gap on number three and a pretty big gap on number four. And you

can really see him. Randy Johnson after 30 is just unlike anything else that we really ever saw, except for one pitcher who is within one win of him. Do you know who that pitcher is? Yeah. I feel like we did talk about this. Was it a Necro? It is. Yeah. It's the Necro. Phil Ne necro 89 wins after 30 yeah a lot that is a lot any other notables that stand out to you who are on one list very high up but not on the other at all uh who are very high up and not on the other at all that's a good question i i was more interested for my purposes for guys guys who were very consistent. So like Ricky Henderson is 20 and 21.

Greg Maddox is 14 and 14. But yeah, like Brett Saberhagen was number 20. And Kevin Apier was actually number 16 before 30. And neither one is on the list at all for post 30. Felix is actually number 15 all time for before. And it'll be interesting to see whether he makes the latter one because his career has a certain

trajectory. Same with Sabathia, who's 23 all-time. Koufax, of course, is on one and not the other. For hitters, actually, the top 11 hitters are all on the post-30 list as well, to varying degrees.

Like Mickey Mantle just makes it. Albert Pujols is actually on it. Surprised me a little bit. Not high, but he is already on it. So the highest player who's only on the pre-30 and not on the post-30 is, do you have a guess? He's relevant currently, relatively relevant. I mean, you read his name this summer a lot. It's Ken Griffey.

Oh, right. Ken Griffey, number 12, and didn't make it. All right. You got the fun one. Ernie Banks. Ernie Banks was number 31 before 30 and didn't make it after. Huh. I didn't know that.

Me neither. Actually, there was an issue of Craig Wright's newsletter, a page from Baseball's Past, which I subscribe to, Ernie Banks and now that I think about it he had knee problems And he had to switch from shortstop to first Base and wasn't as valuable after that So that explains that Alright you can use the play index

Yourself use the coupon code BP When you sign up at baseballreference.com Get the discounted price of $30 On a one year subscription Wait wait one more thing Mike Trout Who just turned 25 Is already number 49

On the pre-30 list Wow He's already ahead of Joe Morgan Tim Raines Guys who were pretty good Where do you predict he will finish? Let's see. So he's got ages 25, 26, 27, 28, 29.

He's got five more years by baseball accounting. So if he were an eight-win player for those five years, he would end up third all-time. Slightly, slightly, slightly like a win behind Ty Cobb and Rogers Hornsby. All right. And a win ahead of Mickey Mantle All right Ahead of Ruth but probably not counting Ruth's pitching war That's correct

All right question from BP's Matt Trueblood So Dylan Bundy would obviously be claimed on waivers In fact I bet he would be claimed on waivers by the first team with an opportunity to claim him on waivers The Twins So let's say they did that And let's say the Twins then offered the Oriolesvin Santana straight up. They are not paying down the contract obligations in exchange for Bundy. If you were Dan Duquette, would you do it? So my first response to this without thinking about it all that much is absolutely not like I wouldn't even consider it. But Matt doesn't ask

frivolous questions. So can you make the case for why this is a perfectly reasonable offer? It's funny because in episode two or so of this podcast, I was making the case that the Orioles should have traded Dylan Bundy and Manny Machado because that was their – I thought that that year was their fluke window and that they should make the most of it and trade those guys who were both rookies having just made their debuts. And I was wrong about their window, as everybody was and as some of us continue to be.

I was wrong about Manny Machado, the extremeness to which he is great. But you could have traded Dylan Bundy and been pretty happy with that up to now. But you could have traded Dylan Bundy and been pretty happy with that up to now. But now, thanks to the fact that Dylan Bundy got injured at just the right time, unless we were wrong when we looked at his service time last time, they do still have him for six years. And Dylan Bundy seems like a pretty good pitcher. I wouldn't expect.

How many innings will Dylan Bundy pitch over the next six years? Well, I guess that's the crux of the question. So the case for Urban Santana would be that he is fairly durable and he's a league average to better pitcher. He wasn't particularly durable last season, but for the most part, he'll be around 200 innings or so and he'll give you a league average ERA better some years. better some years, and you can kind of count on that. And he signed for two years at a reasonable rate, 13.5 per with a $14 million team option for the third year. So you can reasonably expect, I don't know, I mean, any pitcher probably you have to factor in some injuries when you're going out three years. So I don't know what I'd project from Irvin Santana over three seasons, maybe 400 innings or something like that. So from Bundy, who hasn't pitched really any innings for the past few years and is now beyond what he has done in any of those years. And as we talked about, maybe showing some signs of fatigue from that workload and having

had some serious injuries what would you project for him over six years probably not more than i would project for santana over three yeah santana when he's not being suspended he does he does give you 200 innings a year yes i i i probably uh part of my snap judgment is that I just don't like Irvin Santana as much as I probably should. I have a feeling about him being lumped in with other guys that the twins have signed basically. And that before him – Kevin Correa or Ricky Nolasco or something. Right, exactly. And before him, guys that the Royals were acquiring for their rotation.

So I probably lump him in as a worse pitcher than he is. He's a perfectly adequate pitcher. He is worth starting in a postseason game. And I would have put him just below that line. And I think I'm wrong about that. He's not – if he is starting game one for you Which he would for the Orioles maybe Then you've got a very uphill climb

To the World Series But he is better than Ricky Nolasco Yes, definitely And he's better than Ricky Nolasco has been for years And he's better than Matt Latos And he's better than Aaron Horang. And those are the guys that I sort of am thinking of him as being with.

I don't know why that is. I don't know why I have such a negative feeling toward him. I guess maybe because of his last year with the Angels? I would say that is probably it. It is because of his last year with the Angels, which I covered. Yeah. So, right. So if you have him starting early in a playoff series that's probably not great

But he will start In a playoff series at least if you want him to Which you can't really say about Dylan Bundy And he doesn't have any of the upside He's not going to turn Into a top of the rotation starter Which Dylan Bundy at least has a chance To be but he's

Also going to be there probably So it's just a high floor versus high ceiling low floor kind of argument so uh bundy will make you know roughly in six years he'll make roughly what santana is going to make in three yeah roughly speaking yeah um and so if i told you 450 innings for bundy do you take the over or under on that over the next six years? Probably under. Yeah. I mean, the most likely number is the mode, I guess, would be sub 50.

It still remains relatively likely that he just, you know, something snaps again. Yeah. But that's probably only like 8% likely. There's a lot of possibilities. Yeah. But that's probably only like 8% likely. There's a lot of possibilities. I think I'd probably go over 450 and like I would go under 650 though, I think. Uh-huh.

And so they're paid close to the same. Their innings are relatively close. Although Santana, you can, you know, the floor is, the realistic floor is is probably like his mode is not under 50 no and santana is available for this postseason which and this pennant race which is the only thing that we know is going to happen in the future of the world uh every year after that becomes less predictable and so there's some benefit to getting it now, right now for the Orioles where they are. Of course, Bundy is available sort of right now. Yeah. If I had the decision-making power to make this trade though, I would also have the decision-making power to shut Bundy down.

And I think I would. Even in the pennant race? I wouldn't for most pitchers, and I'm probably more of the let the guy keep pitching school than baseball GMs have been over the last few years. But with Bundy, I think so, yeah. I mean, 60 innings over the last three years total. Yeah. And the signs are not suggesting anything other than fatigue to my eye, to my way of thinking about it. And he's young and he's got a potentially extremely bright future. I mean, he still has the potential

legitimately to be a number one, a guy who's, you know, a true ace making the minimum for you next year. So yeah, I think I would, I would shut him down down Okay, so it turns out to be a better question Than it seems like at first blush, I think So it's not a no-doubter Yeah, if the choice is Oh man If the choice is Bundy keeps pitching For the rest of this year

Or getting Santana I think I take Santana If the choice is Bundy gets shut down, paradoxically, or maybe not paradoxically, but sort of surprisingly, the less I expect from Bundy this year, the more I want him. So it's a tough question. Yeah, it's a fine question. It's a tough question.

I'm probably wrong. All right. I don't think I'd do it. I changed my mind. I don't like I do it I changed my mind I don't like Irvin Santana So you changed your mind twice I'm changing my mind No matter what

I'm turning it down no matter what I'm keeping Bundy no matter what I'm either rolling the dice on him pitching this year Or I'm taking the long-term upside of next year onward And I'm keeping Dylan Bundy in this scenario. All right. I think I am keeping him also. All right.

So we will leave it there. One cool thing to announce, free offer for Effectively Wild listeners. One of our listeners is Clay Dreslow, who is the developer of Baseball Mogul, the much-loved baseball simulation management computer game, which is on its, I think, 19th installment, something like that. Always gets good reviews and is right up the alley of most of our listeners. Clay has just offered to give it away for free. So if you join

our Facebook group, I will post the link in there to last year's version of the game, Baseball Mogul Diamond, and anyone who's in the Facebook group can download it using that link. And Clay is also offering a free download of the latest version of the game, Baseball Mogul 2016, to our Patreon supporters at the $15 level. So I will add that information and message those people too. So free computer game. If you've never tried Baseball Mogulul i have seen firsthand what it can do it's my roommate in college started playing baseball mogul and then just never stopped playing baseball mogul for days weeks months after that so if you feel like getting

addicted to a cool baseball game you can do that it's a very statistically sophisticated sim i've used it for articles in the past You can take over historical teams It also has updated rosters So you can take over a current franchise It's a good game with a long legacy So join the Facebook group Facebook.com slash groups slash Effectively Wild And try it out

So thanks Clay Alright so that is it for today If you aren't the developer of a respected baseball simulation You can still support the podcast in another way By going to Patreon at patreon.com slash effectively wild. Five listeners who have already pledged their support. Mark Hauscher, Dan Shatuck, Eric Saar, Jesse Schwartz, and Doug Gale. Thank you. As mentioned, you can find our Facebook group at facebook.com slash groups slash effectively wild.

And you can rate and review and subscribe to the podcast on iTunes. You can buy our book, The Only Rules It Has to Work, our wild experiment building a new kind of baseball team. Check out the website at theonlyrulesithastowork.com. And please leave us a review on Amazon and Goodreads if you like the book. You can reach us at podcastatbaseballperspectives.com or by messaging us through Patreon. I'll have an episode of the Ringer MLB show up tomorrow,

so you can listen to me there. And Sam and I will be back with another episode of effectively wild later this week i've got no answers i've got no answers i've got no answers