0:12

Effectively Wild.

0:20

Hello and welcome to episode 2013 of

0:22

Effectively Wild, a Fangrafts

0:24

baseball podcast brought to you by our Patreon supporters.

0:27

I'm Meg Reilly of Fangrafts and I'm joined as always

0:29

by Ben Lindberg of The Ringer. Ben, how

0:31

are you?

0:32

Doing great. How are you? Well,

0:34

my mentions are once again full of pooping.

0:38

Because of Pete Alonzo? Yeah, because of Pete

0:40

Alonzo. And I, I had said like,

0:42

it's so nice to have these tender kisses

0:44

be the source of so many

0:47

mentions as opposed to my usual

0:49

beat where people are pooping. And

0:51

then Pete Alonzo had to tell a story. And

0:54

then everyone was like, hey, here's a

0:56

pooping guy for you. You know, and

0:58

I love when people are like, in case you haven't seen it. And I'm like,

1:00

I don't know if you understand how well

1:03

known for this particular beat I have become.

1:05

But

1:05

the odds are good I have seen it. You

1:08

only wrote one thing about this,

1:10

right? I mean, you you wrote the Archie Bradley

1:12

thing. And then we've, we've talked about

1:15

it.

1:15

I wrote about what can

1:18

potentially be a precursor to pooping, which

1:20

was the farting and the

1:22

forceful. Inspired

1:25

by the... Breaking Lind? Yes,

1:28

the Adam Lind example that Jeff and I

1:30

talked about on the podcast. Yeah. Thank you for

1:32

that. Just with

1:35

the, the rosin, the poof. Yeah. That

1:38

it seemed to probably be a rosin poof. It

1:40

was a rosin poof. I don't think he farted forcefully

1:42

enough to expel rosin

1:44

from his pants. But I think the

1:47

combination of those two articles

1:50

has made this my beat. But yeah, the

1:52

Archie Bradley one was definitely the most

1:56

salient example, you know.

1:57

Because there was sleuthing required that

1:59

time. Yeah, I did have to do a little sousa.

2:02

Yeah, Pete Alonzo didn't leave anything

2:04

to the imagination really in

2:06

terms of when this happened. I mean, he gave enough

2:08

details, the little clip from the Foul

2:10

Territory interview, the host,

2:13

one of the hosts said which game it was. So

2:15

there's no research to do here

2:18

as far as pinpointing the game or the

2:20

moment like we did with Kike Hernandez

2:22

on the podcast when he came out and said that

2:25

he did it but didn't specify exactly when it

2:27

happened. So there's no homework to

2:29

do this time. It's just a funny story

2:31

that reminds us that everybody poops,

2:34

as the book says, and that includes major

2:36

leakers and that includes major leakers during

2:38

baseball games sometimes. So he had to go

2:41

and he mistimed it and

2:44

he realized that he really had to go and he was due up. And

2:48

so he decided to swing at the first pitch because

2:50

he had to. It was an emergency and

2:52

he had a home run because he hits a lot

2:54

of home runs and he made

2:57

haste back to the dugout and took

2:59

care of business.

2:59

I'm fascinated by the fact that

3:01

like really this is a story

3:04

about an absence of pooping until

3:06

the very end. But it's not

3:08

like Archie Bradley where there was

3:11

like a little bit of dew

3:13

maybe in his

3:14

pants. That's not

3:17

what happened here as far as

3:19

we know. So anyway, yeah,

3:21

I saw it friends.

3:22

Yes, don't worry. I heard. And

3:25

the last time- Brought to Meg's attention. Yeah, it's

3:27

been, it got escalated up to

3:29

me, don't you worry. That made its way up

3:31

the chain. Well, last time we talked about a player

3:34

revealing that he had maybe

3:36

actually pooped

3:37

himself a little bit, we

3:39

got a very forceful

3:41

email from a listener who said he hated

3:44

every moment of us talking about it. It was

3:46

the worst thing he had ever heard on the

3:48

podcast. And so to that listener, I want

3:50

to say I am sorry, but

3:53

hopefully you

3:55

felt like you had enough of a

3:57

warning up top to-

3:59

distance yourself from this segment.

4:02

We'll be sure there's time. There was no mishap

4:04

here. Nothing actually went right. It was a

4:06

close call. But it's a cautionary tale,

4:08

not just for baseball players and for people in general,

4:10

but also for writers, because things

4:13

can become your beat with just

4:16

one or two times tackling that topic.

4:18

So you have to be careful. You just become the person

4:20

who covers that thing. It's

4:22

good to specialize. Like you do sometimes hear

4:25

that advice. I mean, I've become more of a generalist

4:27

in my career, but sometimes you will hear people

4:30

say, yeah, you should specialize. You should find a niche.

4:32

You

4:32

should be the expert in that

4:34

thing. In one thing, yeah. And you

4:36

have done that. You didn't intend

4:38

to do it exactly in this area. Yeah,

4:41

it wasn't my intent.

4:44

When the bird died on the field, when Will

4:46

Brandon killed that bird, I messaged

4:48

Bauman about it. And I was like, how is it that you

4:51

get the bird deaths? And I got stuck with poop.

4:53

And he was like, which of us is really losing here? These

4:55

are both terrible things. So what

4:58

I really need in my life is for Yordon

5:00

Alvarez to hit a home run and go kiss somebody. So

5:03

that's the only way to wash clean

5:05

the slate that is my mentions.

5:08

Anyway,

5:09

here we are. Yeah, it bites me of in college,

5:11

my friends, and I am sure probably everyone's friends.

5:14

We would spot people on campus

5:16

now and then who would do something,

5:19

say something, do something that

5:22

stuck out to us for some reason. And we didn't know

5:24

them. And we never really saw them again.

5:26

And they weren't fully 3D

5:29

people to us. They were just people that we encountered

5:32

in the background of our lives. And whatever

5:34

that

5:35

one salient thing that they did

5:37

that happened to stick out to us was, they

5:40

would be known to us by that

5:42

for the rest of us. Right. Like, oh, he's a poop guy. Yeah,

5:45

right. It's like, oh, there's that guy who

5:47

did or said that thing that one

5:50

time, right? Because it's

5:52

just like a character, like a background character

5:55

in your life. Now, you're a background character

5:57

in their life. They're the protagonist in

5:59

their life. you might be a background

6:01

character to them, but to us,

6:04

it's just like, oh yeah, there's that guy who did that

6:06

thing that one time. And I

6:08

guess that has happened to you with the poop

6:10

articles with baseball.

6:12

But I hope and think that you're known for

6:15

much more than that. So, all

6:18

right, so we've got a few things to

6:20

talk about today, and then we will have a

6:22

stat blast and a pass blast. So,

6:24

I guess we should relate some

6:27

good news about pitchers returning to action,

6:29

because it seems like so often we are lamenting

6:32

the loss of pitchers and pitchers hurting themselves,

6:35

that we should note when

6:37

pitchers come back, especially if

6:39

it's a pitcher who's been gone for

6:42

some serious reason, and we are recording

6:44

on Monday afternoon, and we

6:47

are happy to report. I mean, we're not

6:49

breaking this news. We're not reporting it. We're

6:52

relaying the news that Liam Hendricks

6:54

is back with the White Sox. He

6:57

is cancer-free, and he is

6:59

back in baseball, and Jeff Passon

7:02

had a nice piece about him and about

7:04

the whole journey that he's gone through over

7:07

the past year or more, and just

7:09

the past five months or so of actual

7:11

treatment for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, which

7:14

I had not realized until I read the piece was

7:16

stage four

7:16

non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, which

7:19

is more treatable and survivable

7:22

for that particular kind of cancer than

7:25

other kinds when you hear stage four, but

7:27

still, that's a scary, serious thing.

7:30

And he probably would have been back sooner

7:32

if it had been up to him, but he

7:35

is healthy and he is raring

7:37

to go, and the White Sox will

7:39

be thrilled to have him. They could certainly use

7:41

him on the field as well, and

7:44

in the clubhouse because everyone

7:46

loves Liam Hendricks, so you're going to

7:48

get a boost from having Liam Hendricks around regardless

7:51

of the circumstances, but also, hey,

7:53

Liam Hendricks is back. So there's your good

7:55

news about baseball for today.

7:57

Yeah, it's just like a lovely

7:59

bit of a lift, you know, because it's good.

8:02

It's more than good news about baseball, right? It's like good news

8:04

about people. It's people

8:06

news. So, yeah, it's such

8:09

a relief and I hope that

8:11

things kind of go well for him as he comes

8:13

back and that he remains

8:17

healthy and cancer-free for many, many

8:19

years to come.

8:19

And another return on Monday,

8:22

Michael Soroka is back who obviously

8:25

was missing from action for a lot

8:27

longer than Hendricks, not for a life-threatening

8:30

reason, but for a career-threatening

8:32

reason or reasons. And on

8:35

Monday, this will have happened by the time

8:37

people are listening to this, but Soroka

8:39

is back and he's actually going to be facing Paul

8:42

Blackburn, who's also back and is making

8:44

his season debut for the Oakland A's. So,

8:46

hey, it's okay now, A's fans, Paul

8:48

Blackburn, 2022 All-Star is

8:51

back and get hurt

8:53

to have Paul Blackburn back. I don't think that's

8:55

quite going to do it for them, but,

8:57

you know, every win or loss

9:00

avoidance matters for the Oakland A's these

9:02

days. But the headline is that

9:04

Soroka has returned and he has

9:07

not pitched in the majors since 2020. It

9:10

has been a really long time. Really

9:12

long time. Soroka in the majors. Of

9:14

course, he was an All-Star in 2019.

9:17

He was sixth place in the Cy Young

9:19

race. He was the

9:19

rookie of the year, runner up. And

9:22

then even 2020, he

9:24

was missing for most of that shortened season.

9:26

So, it has been years and years and injuries

9:29

after injury since he returned. So,

9:32

Atlanta, not quite as in need

9:34

of reinforcements and pitching as

9:37

the White Sox are, although certainly the Braves

9:39

have been short-handed when it comes to pitching

9:42

and have lost their fair share of pitchers too. But

9:44

nice to see Soroka return as

9:46

well. Not a moment too soon given some

9:48

of their losses. But yeah,

9:51

it's really, they should work

9:54

on the technology to better protect

9:57

elbows or maybe just

9:59

clone Spencer Shroff.

9:59

writer. Yeah, that would help too.

10:02

One or the other, you know. But then do you have to wait, you

10:04

know, for the clone to… Well,

10:06

you can do the Star Wars accelerated

10:08

aging thing, but there are all kinds of ethical

10:10

issues with that as well. Right, yeah. Yeah. That's really

10:13

the problem.

10:15

Remember? Do you remember being a kid and being like

10:17

really worried about Dali the sheep? Oh

10:19

yeah, right. Yeah. Funny.

10:23

So, Soroka, successive Achilles

10:26

of terrors, right? Terrible. Just like reading

10:29

about his injuries, it just sounded not

10:31

only just damaging to his career, but

10:34

like painful and especially demoralizing.

10:36

Yeah. And there were other injuries along

10:39

the way too. So, yeah, I'm just

10:41

seeing that those three guys are back,

10:43

especially Hendricks and also to a lesser

10:46

extent Soroka. That was a nice boost because,

10:48

you know, I went

10:48

to MLB Trade Proomers and the first headline

10:50

I saw was Lance McCollers no

10:52

longer throwing off a mound. Yeah. I

10:54

know. I was like, oh, this is never

10:57

good. Yeah. I was wondering, well, is he

10:59

throwing off something else now? I don't think so. Where is he throwing?

11:01

No. I think he got shut down again, right? He had

11:03

moved back to throwing off flat ground,

11:05

but I don't know if he's throwing at all now. Yeah.

11:08

But yeah, that extra's rotation.

11:10

Also, a fair share of injuries

11:13

there too and not a ton of depth that they

11:15

built in. Anyway, we got to take

11:17

our opportunities to be

11:18

pleased about pitcher health.

11:21

Yeah. So, that's what we're doing

11:23

this time. We don't want to be all doom and gloom.

11:25

Sometimes pitchers come back

11:27

too. Sometimes they come back. Well, and

11:30

not the only notable return

11:33

from injury, you know, who else is back who

11:35

speaking of like injuries that just sound really

11:37

painful, Royce Lewis got activated. Oh, that's

11:39

right. About the injured list. So,

11:43

he's back in action. Max Kepler too,

11:45

but are we at the point where we're like, Hey,

11:48

how can I be able to max Kepler? But anyway,

11:51

Royce Lewis is back and he had just

11:54

like the knees of, you

11:56

know, an octogenarian,

11:57

but it seems like he's gonna.

12:00

He's going to be back and playing well

12:02

for the twins. So the Minnesota twins with, as

12:04

we speak, a one game lead over

12:07

the Detroit Tigers in the Central.

12:10

The twins are one game over 500 and also one game in

12:12

first place. That

12:16

division. I don't want to harp

12:18

on it too much, but, gosh,

12:20

that division. It's

12:21

so bad. It's

12:23

really so bad. Really so bad. And, you

12:25

know, not to be totally

12:28

outdone. Like the NL Central is not much

12:30

better. No,

12:31

no, it's not. Yeah, and I was actually

12:33

just looking at the standings as a whole.

12:36

And there's not a single division

12:39

where the division leaders lead

12:41

is as many as five games. Right.

12:44

The max, as we speak, is four and a half. In

12:46

the East, the NL East, yeah. Yeah,

12:48

and also the AL East. I think the Rays

12:50

are up four and a half currently. Four.

12:52

Yeah. So, oh, that's right. Yeah. Was

12:55

there a game that I missed maybe? I don't know. I

12:58

don't know if that's historically

13:00

significant. I have not stat blasted

13:03

that to see how common it is.

13:05

Yes, the standings I had to refresh. And

13:08

look at that. The lead is now half game

13:11

smaller in the AL East. But I

13:14

don't know if this is that anomalous for

13:16

there not to have been big leads built

13:18

up. We're only a couple months into the season.

13:21

But no one is running away with things

13:23

because, as we noted, the Rays, who

13:25

have by far the best record in baseball still, they

13:28

have not run away with things because all

13:30

the teams in that division are good. And the

13:32

Orioles have been great too lately and the

13:34

Yankees have been good. And so there's not that

13:36

much of a gap there. So in the Central,

13:39

now that twins lead has expanded to a game

13:41

and a half since I last refreshed. So

13:43

that's much

13:44

more. Oh my God, it's like there's baseball happening all around

13:46

us. So comfortable

13:48

game and a half lead now. Still only one

13:50

in the last column. Anyway, you've

13:53

got a game and a half lead in the Central.

13:55

You've got a two and a half game lead

13:57

in the AL West.

13:59

and a half lead in the NL Central, you

14:02

have a game and a half lead in the NL West.

14:05

So everything's kind of close now, which

14:07

is good, I think. Now, there's

14:10

obviously a difference between having

14:12

a close race where every

14:14

team, you know, I was going to say every

14:17

team is trash. That sounds harsh. Wow,

14:20

man. We did just dump

14:22

on the AL Central, but I won't go

14:25

that far. I will say every team is

14:27

mediocre. Is that kinder and

14:29

maybe

14:29

more accurate? So every

14:32

team is mediocre in that division. So

14:34

that's a little less exciting than

14:37

in a division where you

14:39

have maybe a little less parity

14:41

overall, but the top two or the

14:44

top three are close and they're

14:46

actually good teams, right? Like

14:48

how enhanced is a

14:50

pennant race, if you can even call it a pennant

14:53

race when we're still in May as we speak,

14:55

but how much more exciting

14:57

is a pennant race in

14:59

a good division or between

15:02

good teams at a pennant race in

15:04

a mediocre division or between bad teams,

15:07

given the same margin, the same

15:09

set of nation?

15:10

Oh, 50%. I

15:14

don't have like a meaningfully more,

15:17

a lot, a bushel, a pec,

15:20

you know, several Al2VAs

15:23

and a smaller number

15:24

of judges, like, you know, a lot?

15:27

It's a lot. Yeah, it's definitely a lot. Yeah,

15:29

because it just it feels like a

15:32

matter of who will fail less,

15:35

right? When it's an AL Central, it's

15:37

just no one's seizing the

15:40

division. No one's car paying the

15:42

division. It's just everyone

15:44

is slogging along and some are slogging

15:47

a little bit better than others, but

15:49

that's basically it. It

15:51

doesn't feel like anyone is winning. It just

15:53

feels like different degrees of losing. I

15:55

mean, literally, the twins are the

15:57

only non-losing

15:58

team in the AL Central. Barely.

16:00

So that's. There

16:02

are only two teams at

16:05

or above 500 in the NL Central

16:07

and, you know, the

16:09

pirates are at 500 and the Brewers are

16:11

three games up. So it's like, this is not very, and

16:14

sometimes you look at it and you think

16:16

to yourself, wow, the pirates are

16:18

playing 500 ball. And that does suggest

16:22

like a step forward, right?

16:24

That's good. Like they're

16:26

plucky, they're frisky. They're,

16:28

you know, they're not quite where the diamondbacks

16:31

are, but like they're, they can give you a problem

16:34

if, if they put their minds to it. And

16:36

that's good, but you want that team to be like

16:38

in third or fourth place, you know, a

16:41

good division race, right? Like you want

16:43

them to be ascendant and then

16:45

the next year, take a step forward and be

16:47

like at the top with a little bit

16:50

of room to spare. But yeah, it's, man,

16:52

it's, so there's some bleak, there's some bleak

16:55

baseball being played this year, Ben, like there's a lot of

16:57

really good baseball being played and that's

16:59

very exciting. And pirates,

17:01

D-backs, a number of teams sort

17:02

of taking a step forward, Orioles, right?

17:05

And so that's really thrilling, but

17:07

it's sure being weighed down

17:10

at least slightly by like

17:13

not just the, the A's of the world,

17:15

but just a lot of mediocre

17:17

muck. There's a lot of muck out

17:19

there. Well, there aren't that

17:21

many elite teams this

17:23

season. You have the Rays who

17:26

are still on pace for 112

17:28

or so wins, right? But have,

17:32

yeah. And if you draw

17:34

some arbitrary starting point

17:36

and end point and just skip all the games

17:39

they want at the very start of the season, then

17:41

they're not quite on that same sort of

17:43

pace. And one of my semi bold

17:45

predictions in the podcast we did before the season

17:47

started, felt

17:49

I had to qualify the boldness, but I predicted

17:52

that no team would win more

17:58

than 97 games.

17:59

Obviously, the rays are

18:02

on pace to win many more

18:04

than that still. But if you

18:06

look at the projections, I think,

18:08

yes, this is updated for the rays most recent

18:11

loss. The rays are projected

18:13

to win 96 games, according

18:15

to the Fangraft's depth charts, and

18:18

the Braves are also projected to win 96.

18:21

And that's it. They're the top. So currently,

18:23

no one is actually projected

18:26

to win more than 97, or even 97.

18:29

Now, that's

18:29

assuming that the rays are

18:32

a rest of season 539 winning percentage team, according

18:36

to the projections and factoring in the strength

18:38

of schedule and everything. And as we've

18:40

discussed, the rays do seem

18:43

a little more vulnerable than you

18:45

would think, given their record, just because

18:47

of the competition, but also because of all

18:49

the injuries and all the players who

18:51

are perhaps playing over their previous

18:54

levels in ways that may or

18:57

may not be fully sustainable. So

18:59

if you

18:59

believe the numbers, then we're

19:02

on track for my prediction to come true,

19:04

at least certain numbers, not the on

19:06

pace numbers, but the projecting

19:08

numbers, which even at this point

19:11

in the season, the projections, the

19:13

preseason projections, I think, still more

19:16

predictive than the season to date record.

19:18

And certainly the updated

19:21

rest of season projections are

19:23

always a good gauge. So if

19:25

two teams are on pace for 96, and

19:28

there are a few other that are on pace for 90 plus,

19:31

then there's still a very good chance that

19:33

the razor or someone else will end up

19:36

over 97. But currently,

19:38

at least the projections would say that

19:40

that is not likely to

19:42

happen for any one particular team, which

19:44

is unusual given recent

19:47

years where we've had so much stratification,

19:50

and there's been big separations between

19:52

the best teams and the worst teams. Now you have the

19:54

A's this year, so there's still going

19:56

to be a big separation.

19:59

differential then. Yes, but

20:02

they have Paul Blackburn back. But

20:04

I sure. Okay. Yes.

20:07

And look, far bit for me to discount the healing powers

20:11

of Paul Blackburn. I'm happy for him that

20:13

he is back. But 199. Yeah.

20:16

No, I mean, they're playing at

20:18

a Cleveland Spiders 1899 pace. So

20:21

unfathomable. Just because of

20:23

that season that they're having the

20:26

gap between the best and the worst performing

20:28

teams will still be sizable. But

20:31

the top end is lower than

20:33

it's been. And I think that's reflected in the

20:35

fact that no team has opened up a

20:38

huge division lead because no

20:40

team seems unstoppable or seems

20:42

like a juggernaut. And the teams that have

20:45

seemed like that have maybe

20:47

taken a step back or other teams have taken a

20:49

step forward. And I think on

20:51

the whole, that's probably good, right?

20:54

I think that's good. I think it can be

20:56

compelling when you have some super teams

20:58

too and you have just the Dodgers

21:01

are incredible and the Astros are incredible.

21:03

Like when there are certain teams you can point to

21:06

and say, wow, that's a great

21:08

baseball team right there as opposed

21:10

to that's a good team. That's a contending

21:13

team, but it has some holes. It has some flaws.

21:15

But on the whole, it's probably for the best.

21:18

It leads to fewer non-competitive

21:21

games or non-meaningful

21:23

games over the course of a season, obviously.

21:26

And Rob Arthur has documented that at Baseball Perspectives

21:28

that in recent years there have just been

21:31

more games that just didn't

21:33

matter as much in a playoff-ad

21:35

sense, playoff import, or

21:38

were just more lopsided in terms

21:40

of the expected victor. So if

21:43

there is a great evening out, that

21:46

would be kind of a correction to where we've been for

21:48

the past several seasons.

21:49

I think that if everyone

21:52

is pretty good and clustered tight, then

21:54

yes, I still think

21:56

that there are systemic incentives.

21:59

that exist that might

22:02

push us to a future that looks

22:04

a lot like the centrals. But

22:06

we have bucked that trajectory this

22:08

year, or at least we've bucked it enough.

22:11

That's a, I think buck is an underutilized

22:13

verb. Where's Lewis Hummerd?

22:15

How about that? Oh, all right. Welcome

22:17

back. Two torn ACLs? No,

22:20

they're not gonna stop him. I mean, they did for a

22:22

while, which is fine because, ouch.

22:25

Yeah, when you have the same

22:28

entry, it's the same as Soroka with

22:30

the multiple Achilles, or

22:32

pictures with the multiple TJs. It's just,

22:35

man, it just, yes, you know

22:37

what you're getting into, but that can be good

22:39

in some ways and bad in other ways. It's

22:42

gotta be demoralizing, and it also makes

22:44

you feel like, especially if it's

22:46

something where, at least with

22:48

the TJ, it's like, you're getting the new

22:51

fresh ligament in there at the time. I

22:53

mean, I guess you're doing

22:55

some

22:55

similar repairs in other parts of the body,

22:57

but when you're repeatedly injuring

22:59

the same part, then you have to wonder,

23:02

is that gonna affect the function there?

23:05

Or is that gonna affect you psychologically, just your

23:07

level of confidence in that body

23:09

part? Or is there some structural weakness

23:11

there where that will keep recurring? So

23:13

I

23:14

don't know whether it's better or worse

23:16

for your long-term prognosis to injure

23:19

the same body part repeatedly versus

23:22

injuring different body parts. Assuming

23:25

that they're not just accidents

23:28

and sort of freak injuries, would

23:31

it be better to pull your hamstring

23:33

over and over again, or would it be better

23:36

to pull your hamstring once and your calf

23:38

once and your quad once? Be better

23:40

not to pull any of them, obviously, but

23:43

I wonder whether it bodes

23:44

better for you if you spread it around or

23:47

if it's concentrated in a single spot,

23:49

which might suggest that

23:51

you can't conquer that vulnerability, but then again,

23:54

if you could, maybe that's your only problem.

23:56

Right, yeah, I think it would really, this

23:58

is such a cheap. answer, but

24:00

it would depend, I think. And I think it depends

24:03

too on the position

24:05

that you're being asked to play. Right. If

24:08

you are, you know, a shortstop,

24:11

like, or, you know, you're, you're trying to

24:13

be a fast guy, you know, you're

24:15

trying to be a quick boy and you

24:17

have repeated lower leg or knee stuff,

24:19

like at a certain point, you're going to be like, I'm

24:22

going to be slower, probably maybe. Like,

24:24

am I going to be able to return to the level of

24:27

quickness? Is the step going to be good? And Lewis's,

24:30

his positional future is, is clouded

24:33

by the Korea of it all. Although

24:35

he's heard now too. So I don't know, man, but I

24:37

think it would really depend. I

24:40

think that neither helps

24:43

you avoid being thought of as injury

24:45

prone, which is probably

24:47

its own problem. But yeah,

24:50

if you're just doing, I don't know, if you

24:52

have the same thing over and over, plus

24:55

you just have to have to do that rehab

24:57

again and again, ACLs,

24:59

Achilles, like anything where you are

25:02

like, I could hear it snap. It's like,

25:06

oh, so that's, uh,

25:08

that's what I have to say about that, Ben.

25:10

So I think that I

25:12

wouldn't want every team to be 81 and 81. I

25:15

mean, that would be so weird. It happens that that

25:17

actually would be fun one time, but I

25:20

wouldn't want every team to just

25:22

be indistinguishable from all the others.

25:24

But I also don't think it's the best when

25:26

the gaps have been as big as they have in

25:28

some recent years. So I, I think this

25:31

is a step in the right direction. It

25:33

does make me think that

25:36

we will have a greater chance of lamenting the lack

25:39

of tiebreakers now, game

25:40

163s, games, 163. If

25:43

we have closer races and

25:46

greater odds of, of ties

25:48

or, or multi-way ties, then we

25:50

might lament the loss

25:53

of tiebreakers even more than we have

25:55

just kind of conceptually, if it becomes

25:58

something that changes things.

25:59

in practice, but on

26:02

the whole, I'm happy that the standings have

26:04

largely leveled out, I guess, especially

26:07

in the National League, where there's

26:09

just not a lot of, you know, you don't

26:11

have your raise and your ace in the National League,

26:13

so everyone really is tightly clustered.

26:16

Well, and I think you're right that like it's fun,

26:18

it can be fun to have super team, but when

26:20

like when super teams are accompanied by like

26:22

really, really bad teams, then don't

26:24

you kind of look sideways at the super teams

26:26

a little bit, and it's like, how super are you? Are you really super,

26:29

you know, you super duper, are you good

26:32

and taking advantage of a competitive environment

26:34

that is kind of full of muck?

26:37

Right, yes, I think that's

26:40

an important point. So I do

26:43

think that there are some teams that are

26:46

not

26:46

depressing in the ways that

26:48

they have been in recent years. Like I

26:51

was a guest on a Red's Radio

26:53

pregame show recently, even

26:55

though we have a bit here,

26:58

a running bit going back to the beginning of the

27:00

podcast of not talking about the Reds, I

27:02

was asked to talk about the Reds. It's like that song

27:04

in that Pixar movie, you know. Right,

27:06

exactly. We talk about the Reds. Yeah.

27:08

I haven't seen it, and so I don't

27:10

know if that joke works, you know, but

27:13

I don't need to be back on it, just let

27:15

it fly on its own, it's spending for itself

27:17

now.

27:17

Not the first time I've been on

27:20

that Red's pregame show, but I think probably

27:22

the most optimistic

27:24

I was able to be on the Reds pregame

27:27

show, because, you know, I was talking about

27:29

prospects arriving and things looking

27:31

up. All the many infielders. So

27:33

many. They've had a shortage

27:36

for years, and now they have too many. It's

27:38

like when we call out Beli de la Cruz, where

27:41

is he gonna play? And how are we gonna

27:43

sort out this shortstop situation, and

27:45

where's Jonathan India gonna play? And these

27:48

are the proverbial good problems to

27:50

have. These are not problems that

27:52

the Reds have had recently. So you look

27:54

at just all of their infield prospects,

27:57

their surfeit of shortstops, and

27:59

how they're gonna play. how great a change that

28:01

represents from recent events.

28:04

And then you look at the top of the rotation

28:06

and the young guy's there. And again, the big question

28:08

is, are they gonna spend and is ownership

28:10

gonna support that team? But they

28:13

turned around the farm system to the point that yeah,

28:15

that team, it's not bad to watch

28:17

right now. It might get even more watchable

28:20

if De La Cruz and others show up soon. If

28:23

Joey Vado returns at some point, that

28:25

would be nice from a sentimental perspective.

28:27

Although they might actually have so many players that

28:29

it's

28:29

like, can we afford to play Joey Vado

28:32

and block the young guys, which wouldn't

28:34

have been such a problem recently. So that's just

28:37

one example of a team that

28:39

was either

28:40

depressing to talk about or just

28:42

so unremarkable that we

28:45

ended up not talking about them very much. And

28:47

I mentioned our running podcast bid on that pregame

28:49

show and I was like, look, I don't know if the Reds

28:51

are gonna be a very good team as

28:54

soon as even next season, let's say,

28:57

but they are a team that we will have

28:59

to talk about and we will want to talk about. And

29:01

there will be reasons to talk about them other than their

29:04

owner saying something at a luncheon every

29:07

now and then. So that's encouraging. Owner's son,

29:09

owner's son. Yes,

29:11

right. I mean, I think

29:12

he has a stick in the team too, but it's

29:14

just an important, I haven't seen it, but

29:18

I'm given to understand that it's an important

29:20

distinction for all the succession heads out there,

29:22

you know, all this is on. Yes,

29:24

I was up all night writing about succession,

29:27

if you couldn't tell, but there are

29:30

teams and even like the

29:32

nationals were expected to be terrible,

29:35

they haven't been that terrible. Like they've been

29:37

bad, but like run of the mill, bad.

29:39

Yeah, like they're, as

29:41

we're recording, they're 23 and 30. So,

29:44

you know. It's bad. It's not the,

29:46

man, every kind

29:48

of bleh team in baseball is

29:51

probably sending fruit baskets

29:52

to the A's or anything. The existence of the A's is just,

29:54

well, we're not the A's. We're not the A's, like even

29:56

the Rockies aren't the A's. Even the

29:58

Colorado Rock. Not the A's,

30:01

not even close. Even the royals are not

30:03

the A's, although the royals are disconcerting

30:05

me close. They're flirting with being

30:07

the A's in a way that is really

30:10

should make everyone uncomfortable. Yes, although

30:12

not with the same degree of intention,

30:15

I think. No, and with

30:17

a stadium deal secured, right? Yeah,

30:19

well, they're working on that, I guess,

30:21

at least. But the royals were,

30:24

there were reasons to be kind of excited about

30:26

the royals, and those reasons have not paid off

30:28

this far. But, you know, there's hope you

30:31

could look forward and see something there. Or

30:33

even the Cubs, who have the same record

30:36

as the Nationals right now, but as

30:38

we've discussed, they have played better than their records

30:40

suggest, which I guess is only some

30:42

small consolation. But they're

30:45

five games back in the division because

30:47

divisions are so close. The White Sox are

30:49

six games back in their division, right?

30:52

Even though they started the season the way that they started

30:54

at the Cardinals, even with the way they started

30:56

the season, they're tied with the Cubs in the

30:58

standings. They're five games back.

31:01

These teams are within reach. The Reds

31:03

are four games back, right? So, you

31:05

know, you have hope and faith, as

31:07

Bud Zielick said, right? So almost

31:10

every team at this point can kind

31:13

of count itself not completely out of it. I

31:15

think that's nice. Yeah,

31:16

I think that that's nice. It's

31:19

a good thing, you know? But also,

31:21

man, it's just hard to forget that they

31:23

exist, you know? I know.

31:26

They're trying so hard to have us not think

31:28

about them at all, but... That's

31:29

what I was saying last week about

31:32

how, like, I can't look away and I feel bad, but

31:35

I'm riveted to this, right? Yeah. In

31:38

the way that I used to be by the super team. So it's

31:40

like, how high can they go? How many games can

31:42

this Dodgers team win? There's something

31:44

about the extremes that is compelling.

31:48

So I have to balance that, I guess, with

31:50

my league-wide sense

31:52

that it's probably better for more teams to

31:55

be competitive and more matchups to be competitive,

31:58

and yet in terms of individual storylines.

31:59

I'm drawn to the teams that are historically

32:02

great or historically terrible. So

32:04

there's been a lot of fodder in

32:06

that arena lately, which has

32:08

not been good for baseball, but

32:11

has led to a lot of content, I

32:13

guess. Sort of mixed incentives

32:16

there maybe as someone who creates

32:18

content about baseball. So did

32:20

just want to note when it comes

32:22

to extremes, we talked about Jose Abreu

32:25

and his homerlessness and he is

32:27

no longer homerless. He has homered

32:29

finally. He is on the board. He

32:32

has hit one homer. Now he

32:34

has not really improved his

32:37

stats overall that much since

32:39

we talked about him. He has a 49 WRC

32:41

plus, which was roughly where he was

32:43

the last time we talked about him, but

32:45

he has a homer and his

32:48

homer was notable not just because

32:50

it was his first, but also because he

32:53

sprinted around the bases. This was not

32:55

a home run trot. This was a home run sprint

32:59

by someone who you don't really

33:01

associate with sprinting. His

33:03

sprint speed on this home run trot,

33:06

if we can call it that, was 26.2 feet per second.

33:10

His sprint speed on the season is 25.4.

33:14

So he home run trotted faster

33:16

than his sprint speed on the season,

33:19

which has to be pretty unusual,

33:21

I would think. It was the second

33:23

fastest home run trot of

33:25

the season, according to MLB.com. The article

33:27

did not specify which the first was, which come

33:29

on, if you're going to tell me it was the second fastest, tell

33:32

me what the fastest was. You're sparking

33:34

my curiosity here, but I'm

33:36

guessing it was someone faster than Jose

33:38

Abreu. So he sprinted around the

33:40

bases. He slid into

33:44

the dugout basically as if he

33:46

was sliding into home plate because

33:48

he was just so euphoric that he had finally

33:50

hit a home run. That should

33:52

count toward his sprint speed. I agree.

33:55

Sprint speed, they eliminate non-competitive

33:58

runs.

33:59

it down to just close plays

34:02

where you're actually running all out so

34:04

that your slow runs don't drag

34:06

down your sprint speed. But for him, they

34:09

gotta include, they gotta make a special

34:11

exception for this old run trot because this

34:13

was him at top speed. And it's

34:16

funny because baseball is an

34:18

extremely silly sport. People had

34:20

to talk about like whether this was an unwritten

34:23

rules violation for him to do this. So

34:25

Dusty Baker had to defend him and say he wasn't

34:28

trying to show up anybody. He was just happy for himself

34:31

and his team was happy for him. This

34:33

was against the A's of course. The

34:37

Astros hit seven homers I think it back him.

34:39

So if you're gonna hit one finally, I guess

34:42

odds are maybe if you break that

34:44

slide against anyone, maybe it'll be the A's.

34:47

So I don't know if it didn't seem to

34:49

make him any less exuberant the

34:51

fact that this came against Oakland A's pitching. But

34:54

A's manager Mark Kacze also said, I have the utmost

34:56

respect for Abreu and his career and what he's accomplished.

34:59

I'm sure it was a lot

34:59

of frustration going into that timeframe and

35:02

for him, a lot of excitement and it showed.

35:04

So don't worry, no one's mad at Jose

35:06

Abreu. No one's gonna plunk Jose

35:09

Abreu from the sound of it. But what

35:11

a silly thing that we even have to say that.

35:13

Cooler heads prevailed, more reasonable.

35:16

I mean not prevailed. That makes it sound

35:18

like there was someone who was angling

35:21

to be agitated. What I mean

35:22

is like- I don't know if anyone was. It may just be

35:24

that writers asked them about this

35:26

and it wasn't actually a controversy at all,

35:29

but they were asked to comment about it.

35:31

I have no idea. That's

35:31

me going, ahh.

35:34

Anyway, happy

35:36

for Jose Abreu. Yeah. He hits

35:39

another one someday. And

35:42

I know that you were always on

35:44

the watch for umpire hot

35:47

mic situations. I am. And

35:49

we had one over the weekend and

35:51

it was a doozy, just this

35:53

is not like a broadcaster hot

35:55

mic situation. Some of those can be

35:57

fun too. They're not all Brenneman's.

35:59

But the umpire

36:02

hot mic situations may be the best

36:04

of the best, right? I mean, whether

36:06

it's ass in the jackpot, whether it's some of

36:08

the previous examples we've talked about of UMS

36:10

being miked up on the field. Like

36:13

this was the thing you were, I think, maybe

36:15

most psyched about with UMS being miked up on the field. As

36:17

I recall, you were fully in favor

36:20

of this just from a clarity

36:22

perspective, explaining what is actually

36:24

happening to people in the ballpark and on the broadcast,

36:27

but also UMS miked up. There

36:29

was a greater possibility that they

36:32

would say something while their mic was active. And

36:34

that has happened wonderfully

36:37

from time to time. So in this

36:39

case, there was a Marlins

36:41

challenge over the weekend in a Marlins

36:44

Angels game on Saturday. And

36:47

the Marlins challenged a call in the 10th

36:49

inning.

36:51

They thought that Angels catcher Matt

36:53

Dice had never touched home plate on

36:56

what was called a double play. And

36:58

the Marlins challenged and an umpire

37:01

was seemingly caught mocking

37:04

the challenge. So is Dice

37:06

on the home plate? That's the question. Might

37:12

be all might be overturned. Now,

37:15

hopefully, no, I'm challenging. I'm

37:17

challenging the alcohol at home plate. The

37:20

Marlins are going to challenge that. They got their

37:23

heads up their ass. He

37:26

said they got their heads up their ass. The Marlins

37:28

are challenging. They got their heads up their ass.

37:31

And the fun part, I mean, there were

37:33

many fun parts, but the fun part was that the

37:35

call was reversed. And

37:38

it was overturned and the

37:40

Marlins got

37:41

another run, which was important. I

37:44

mean, it was a game that went to extras

37:46

and the Marlins ended up winning eight to

37:48

fives. This was an important

37:51

run. So

37:53

if he was in fact saying that the Marlins

37:55

had their heads up their ass for challenging

37:57

his call, then he was

37:59

very wrong.

37:59

But it echoed,

38:02

it reverberated in his state. It's

38:04

like, you know, there's that little like PA sounds,

38:07

like heads up their ass, up their ass, up

38:09

their... Yeah, it like reverberates

38:12

through. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Which

38:15

I guess you want as an umpire

38:17

to maintain impartiality.

38:20

Yeah.

38:21

No, maybe it doesn't matter because the ampou

38:23

is saying this. He doesn't get to decide, right? Yeah. He's

38:26

not determining their success or

38:28

failure on the challenge. Yeah, but still,

38:30

like if the replay umpths were listening to this and

38:34

they heard their colleague say, call

38:37

into question the challenge, you

38:39

might already worry like would replay

38:41

umpths be hesitant to overturn

38:44

one of their colleagues calls. I don't know that

38:46

there's any evidence to that fact. I think we're

38:48

all used to the fact that umpires are

38:50

fallible now and

38:51

they want to get these calls right with replay. But

38:54

if the ump is overheard

38:57

saying that this call was like so obviously

38:59

correct that a team was

39:02

misguided and challenging, then you wonder

39:04

could that possibly influence the

39:06

review? But

39:07

it certainly wasn't decisive in this case.

39:10

It's a funny moment to get miffed. Like

39:12

on the one hand, I guess, because it was the 10th

39:15

inning, right? Yes. So like

39:17

on the one hand, you're like ready to go

39:20

home. I anticipated

39:23

working a certain amount this day

39:25

and I'm now working more than that amount and I'm ready to

39:27

go home. So on the one hand you

39:30

understand, but on the other hand, it's like you

39:33

that's absolutely the time to challenge. Like

39:36

even if you have a low probability

39:38

of winning the challenge and getting

39:40

the outcome you want, like you

39:42

can't take them with you. So you may as

39:44

well challenge in that moment and

39:46

try to get a run and, you know, go

39:49

home a winner, like with more margin. It's

39:53

such a funny time to get miffed because

39:55

it's like even if they don't think it's going to work, they

39:57

should still do it. Like they should

39:59

still do it.

40:00

that seems like good use of replay.

40:02

That's a good strategy. So it's just

40:04

a, it makes him sound even

40:06

grumpier than he was

40:09

because of the moment that he was in.

40:11

So, you know, like, that's gonna be doing that. Yeah.

40:14

All right. One email

40:16

today. This is from Lister and Patreon supporter

40:19

Joe who said, I was watching the MLB

40:21

TV highlights and the first one was Starling Marte's

40:24

go ahead opposite field Homer.

40:26

Now this was a highlight we'll link to on

40:29

the show page. This was May 21st and

40:32

Joe writes, I've had this nagging feeling this

40:34

season that the ball is jumping off of bats

40:36

this year in ways that don't seem normal. And

40:38

this Homer pushed me to ask you whether there's anything

40:40

to this. It's very possible that my

40:43

couple of years hiatus from watching

40:45

games on TV made me miss

40:47

the really juiced ball. So seeing

40:49

the less juiced ball, but still

40:51

way juicier than 2004 ball

40:54

is throwing me off. But is there anything

40:56

unusual about this year's home run rate? Marte's swing

40:58

here looks like a flyout to medium deep right

41:00

center, not a clear Homer, or is it just me?

41:02

I think it surprises

41:05

me a little bit off the bat. It's

41:07

not the greatest disconnect between

41:10

swing and contact and result

41:12

that I've ever seen. But I don't

41:14

know whether off the bat I would have immediately

41:17

assumed that was a Homer as opposed to maybe

41:19

a wall ball or a deep gapper.

41:21

So I see what Joe's saying, and especially

41:24

if he has been away for a

41:26

while and he missed the

41:28

peak of the juiced

41:30

ball era, that he might

41:33

come back and be like, whoa, the ball

41:35

didn't used to travel. Whereas

41:38

we are acclimated to the ball traveling like

41:40

that. So there probably

41:42

is something to that.

41:44

But there's also something to

41:46

the idea that the ball is still quite lively,

41:49

just like in a historical sense. We

41:52

don't talk about that and fixate on that

41:54

as much as we did when the

41:56

ball first really started jumping

41:58

mid 2015.

41:59

and then into 2016 and then 2017 was a spike and

42:02

then 2019 was wild. Wild.

42:06

But we are still, so far

42:08

this year,

42:09

the home run rate on contact, so

42:11

that is home runs divided

42:14

by at bats minus strikeouts, so

42:16

a percentage of the non-strikeout

42:19

at bats that are home runs. Right. And

42:23

again, it's still May, so

42:25

you would expect this to increase as

42:27

the weather warms up. But

42:30

even now, comparing to previous

42:32

full season rates, this is the fifth

42:35

highest home run per contact rate

42:37

ever.

42:38

So we don't talk about this

42:40

that much because 2019 was 5.5% and 2020

42:45

was 5.3% and 2021

42:47

was 5.0% and 2017 was 4.9%.

42:52

So comparatively speaking, 4.6 is

42:55

not that high. This is back

42:57

to roughly 2018 or 2016 levels, but

43:02

when 2016 happened, we were like, whoa.

43:05

Because it's so influenced

43:07

by the preceding

43:08

seasons, the surrounding seasons,

43:10

that it's like we were just

43:13

numb to the ball jumping off

43:15

the bat because we all saw 2017, we

43:18

all saw 2019.

43:20

Now everything looks comparatively tame,

43:23

but if you just woke up

43:25

and missed the rest of

43:27

this high home run era, then

43:29

you would be like, whoa, what the heck is happening

43:32

here? Why is this not the constant,

43:35

if you're Rip Van Winkle and you're coming back to baseball?

43:38

I mean, I guess Rip Van Winkle,

43:40

well, if he went to sleep for a hundred

43:42

years and he still would have been in the live ball

43:45

era, he would have seen Babe Ruth if he was

43:47

a hundred years ago, but it really

43:49

is so

43:50

dependent on what happened

43:52

just before, which makes

43:54

things seem extreme or not by comparison.

43:57

Well, and then my brain started to... doing

44:00

really weird things in 2019

44:03

where sometimes I would be first

44:05

in the beginning of 2019, I was like,

44:08

how is that a home run? How is that a home run? How is

44:10

that a home run? Over and over and over again, because the ball was so

44:12

juicy, it felt like it was dripping juice. And

44:14

then I got to a point in that season where I had like

44:17

flipped all the way around and I was like, how

44:19

is that not a home run? Like, isn't that a home run? Isn't

44:21

everything a home run? Are there any headset aren't

44:23

home run? Yeah, right.

44:26

And so I think it can

44:28

be like pretty profoundly disorienting.

44:29

And that's been

44:32

a big source of the complaint, right? It's like

44:36

calibrating yourself

44:38

to the juiciness of the ball at

44:40

the beginning of every new season is exhausting.

44:42

It's like, I don't know what... It's

44:45

like, I'm in my late thirties. Am

44:47

I in my late thirties now? My mid thirties.

44:49

I'm still 36. What is that? Is that your

44:52

mid? I think that's mid.

44:53

Yeah. Because otherwise what's

44:56

mid, like only 35 is mid?

44:58

No. So when you're on either side, that's mid.

45:00

Will I still be in my mid thirties in a couple of weeks

45:02

when I turn 37? Yes.

45:06

I'm going to turn it up. We say yes. Oh, man.

45:09

I had to think about it. I'm going to return to the

45:11

home run thing in a hot second, but I

45:14

had to take one of the cats to get booster

45:17

shots. She had to get vaccine

45:19

shots. And they had a little poster

45:22

on the wall in the vet's office while we were waiting for

45:25

the vet to come in on the life

45:27

stages of cats. And I think,

45:30

well, we shouldn't do the kitten one because that's weird, but

45:33

I think that we should adopt their life

45:35

stages nomenclature because you

45:37

go junior, prime, mature,

45:40

senior, and then geriatric. And I

45:42

think that that's great. We need something other than

45:44

king because don't call people kittens. That's gross. But

45:47

like their prime range,

45:50

they put the age

45:52

of the cat and then they put the human equivalent

45:55

and their prime runs from 28 to 40 and

45:57

then mature.

45:59

which sounds so distinguished, Ben,

46:02

like, you know, like you're a philanthropist,

46:05

runs from 44 to 56. I think it's

46:07

great. It's a new, it's

46:09

our new approach, you know? I don't want to have to fill

46:11

out age-specific boxes

46:14

when I like do surveys and stuff. I

46:16

just want to be able to say, no, I'm prime.

46:19

I'm a prime gal. You know, I'm in my

46:21

prime still.

46:22

Well, Don Lemon recently

46:24

learned that it can be dangerous to

46:26

pronounce when a person or a woman's

46:28

prime is. So that could be

46:31

problematic too. I just- But I can

46:33

declare myself to be in my prime. Yes,

46:35

you can labor yourself that way if you want. Yeah, don't do

46:37

what Don Lemon did. That was better. Anyway,

46:42

getting back to the home runs, this

46:44

one didn't super surprise

46:46

me. It looked like, and I guess we could look

46:48

up the Stadcast on it, but it struck me as one

46:50

that, you

46:51

know, it was like a high arcing home run because it didn't

46:53

go so deep. It was in

46:56

a deep bish part of the park, but

46:58

it wasn't like it got planted, you know,

47:00

like, ah, it wasn't a wall scraper, but it

47:03

wasn't like, you

47:04

know what I mean? So it didn't, I don't know,

47:06

maybe I need to recalibrate

47:09

my home run detection

47:11

instrument, you know? Or

47:13

Joe does. I guess it needs a tune up.

47:15

It needs an update, right? Because the ball has

47:18

been updated multiple times. Really?

47:21

Allegedly. Well, we know of.

47:23

Update. Updated

47:24

implies an intent that I

47:26

think is lacking. At least one

47:29

update that was actually intentional. Yes, true.

47:31

And that people said, oh, the ball

47:34

is dead now, right? Like, people were calling

47:36

last year's ball dead. And

47:38

I was like,

47:39

relative to very recent seasons,

47:42

sure, but the 2022 home run rate on Contact

47:46

was the eighth highest ever. It

47:48

was below only the very

47:50

most recent seasons. It was higher than the

47:52

peak of the P.D. era, higher

47:55

than 2000, 2001, 1999, etc. So even that, like, dead ball, I mean.

47:59

only in comparison to

48:02

the very

48:03

recent seasons, not the whole

48:05

sweep of history. So, yeah, it

48:07

is highly dependent on what has happened

48:10

lately. Anyway, I do think

48:12

that baseball player aging

48:15

helps us

48:16

get used to the idea of mortality.

48:18

Like, it can be a reminder of mortality

48:21

in an unpleasant way. But

48:23

what we talk about, baseball players primes

48:25

all the time, right? It's just, it's very compressed

48:28

and accelerated. You go from young

48:30

to old in baseball in

48:32

a span of, what, 15 years,

48:35

right? And that, it

48:37

kind of helps us get used

48:39

to the idea of how that plays out over a

48:42

full lifespan, the athletic lifespan,

48:45

which is sort of depressingly short.

48:47

But we use the same sort

48:49

of terms for it, right? I mean, one day

48:51

you're a young up-and-comer,

48:53

you're a prospect, your

48:55

whatever term we use for young prospect

48:58

and players and then next thing you know. Sometimes we just

49:00

call them youngsters, you know? Yeah. And

49:02

then you're in your prime next thing you know,

49:04

and then you've snapped your fingers and you're

49:06

past your prime, right? You're on

49:09

the wrong side of 30, as people say.

49:11

You're mature. You're mature. You're a mature player,

49:14

right?

49:14

We got to reframe our mindset

49:16

then. You're not past your prime, you're

49:18

mature. Again, distinguished.

49:21

Like, you know, get some chunky

49:23

glasses in a fun color,

49:26

you know, some fun and some big jewelry

49:28

and it's like you're, you know, helping

49:30

to fund an art installation.

49:31

Yeah. Rich Hill

49:33

is on the low end of that mature range.

49:36

Right. The cat-adjusted mature

49:39

range. So, that's encouraging.

49:41

There you go. Okay. All right. And

49:43

one follow-up we talked about and we answered

49:45

an email about various scenarios

49:48

and whether they would qualify as immaculate

49:50

innings or not, especially with the

49:52

pitch clock included and possible violations.

49:55

So, just one more along those

49:57

lines from Manuel, who said, I had another

49:59

hypothesis.

49:59

scenario for the Immaculate Inning slash Pitch

50:02

Clock situation. Let's say a pitcher throws

50:04

nine pitches all for strikes,

50:06

but the hitter had a Pitch Clock violation

50:08

called. For example, first

50:10

two hitters go down swinging on three pitches each,

50:13

but the third hitter gets an automatic called strike

50:15

for the first pitch of his at bat, then swings

50:18

at the first pitch second strike, hits

50:20

a foul ball on the second pitch to extend the at bat,

50:23

and strikes out swinging on the third and last

50:25

pitch of the at bat. Would you consider

50:27

this an Immaculate Inning even if there

50:29

were technically 10 strikes, the pitcher threw

50:32

nine strikes and pitches all

50:34

four strikes, and the pitcher wasn't at fault

50:36

for the violation called on the hitter. So we talked about

50:39

whether an eight pitch inning plus

50:41

a Pitch Clock violation for the

50:43

ninth strike would qualify. This is

50:46

an extra strike. It's nine actual

50:48

pitches that you were throwing all strikes, but then

50:51

there is also a Pitch Clock violation on top of that.

50:54

When

50:56

the pitcher throws his first pitch

50:59

to the batter in this scenario, he's

51:01

or the batter's already down. Oh

51:04

one, right?

51:04

Yes, that's right. So he,

51:07

the batter is already down. Oh one

51:10

pitcher is ahead. Does

51:13

it change the behavior

51:15

of the hitter? Like is

51:18

he, but he does foul it off. So it doesn't

51:20

matter. Like I'm just trying to understand

51:23

does this shift, I mean it obviously shifts

51:26

the balance of the at bat in the pitchers

51:28

favor someone because he's just ahead.

51:30

Right, yeah, you'd have a different mindset.

51:33

You have a different mindset. So maybe

51:35

that's enough to

51:39

change it and be like, yeah,

51:41

you know what I mean?

51:42

I think I agree. I think I agree. Yeah, I'm

51:44

gonna say no. Doesn't count.

51:46

Okay, and two other responses

51:49

we got to the emails we answered. We talked about a hypothetical

51:51

of a player who is incredible

51:53

in AAA and can't hit it all in

51:55

the majors, just like the most extreme quadruple

51:58

A player you could ever imagine.

51:59

I meant to mention that player would

52:02

probably try his hand overseas

52:04

at some point. Like we were talking about him

52:06

just trying over and over again at

52:09

AAA, maybe getting a shot every now and then, but

52:11

you got to figure that that guy would at least

52:14

go to NPV and see whether

52:16

his allergy to the majors also

52:19

applies to other countries major

52:21

leagues or not, right? Because the

52:23

pay would be better, it's a higher level of competition.

52:26

So that would probably be a recourse

52:29

for that player. I don't

52:29

know whether it would help them conquer whatever

52:32

it is that's holding them back in the big leagues, but they could at least

52:35

find out the limits of

52:37

this ailment.

52:38

Right. They would come to understand

52:40

sort of what the situation

52:44

is. Yes. Unless

52:46

they had a reputation before

52:49

a team approached them

52:51

about going overseas that they were haunted.

52:53

Well, yeah, it would be a risk because

52:56

the international leagues often you only

52:58

have so many roster spots you can devote

53:00

to foreign players. And so are you going

53:03

to spend one of those? On a guy who's

53:05

haunted. Right. But

53:07

it would happen. They would at least find out. And then the

53:09

other response, we talked about a hypothetical

53:11

scenario where the runners that

53:14

a team strands at the end of an inning are

53:16

then inherited by the opposing

53:18

team. When the next happening

53:21

starts. And we talked about

53:23

how would you

53:23

decide which runners they

53:25

are who actually stays on the bases.

53:28

Right. And some people pointed out that you could

53:31

just handle that the way that they handle the

53:33

zombie runner. Sure. Which is

53:35

that you can just have the people who made

53:37

the last out would just be up there and

53:40

be those runners. So that would be

53:42

one way to solve that problem, which

53:44

is not the only issue with that hypothetical.

53:47

But we were talking about how you'd handle that. So there

53:49

is a framework for for handling

53:51

that same sort of situation.

53:53

And people were like, I can't believe they didn't

53:55

think of it. And I am here to say, well,

53:57

sure, maybe, but also we don't like.

53:59

the extra inning stuff, so of

54:02

course it wouldn't be a thing we'd gravitate

54:05

toward without direction.

54:06

Well, that is a

54:09

great face-saving explanation.

54:11

Thank you. And also a great segue

54:14

into the stat class because that

54:16

is kind of going to be the topic today. So let's

54:19

play the stat class song.

54:30

All right, so the stat blast is brought

54:32

to you by ToppsNow,

54:51

and

54:57

we extol the virtues of ToppsNow

54:59

every week in this space, in this

55:02

segment, and we tell you the way it

55:04

works works the same way this week as

55:06

it worked last week. And that's that

55:08

there is something exciting that happens in a

55:10

baseball game, and they make a card

55:13

of that thing. Just a quick turnaround. You don't

55:15

have to wait the way you once had to wait

55:17

for the start of the next season, and

55:20

the new set comes out,

55:21

and maybe there's a card

55:24

that highlights something that happened

55:26

that previous season, and you say, oh yeah, that

55:28

happened. But more likely, there

55:30

is no card to commemorate that because

55:32

it's one of a zillion things that happened during a baseball

55:35

season. And maybe it's a fun fact

55:37

on someone's card if the card has fun facts,

55:40

but you don't have a dedicated card produced

55:42

for that. That was not the way that baseball cards

55:45

worked. Well, it's the way they work now, or

55:47

it's at least the way that ToppsNow works.

55:49

So something cool happens.

55:51

You say, hey, that would be a cool

55:53

collectible. I want to display that somewhere.

55:56

It's a nice keepsake. I was at

55:58

that game. I'm a fan.

55:59

of that team or that player, that was a

56:02

really cool thing that happened. And what

56:04

do you know, there is instantly a

56:06

baseball card of that that you can purchase

56:08

the very next day, get it shipped to

56:10

you for free once you pay the price

56:13

for the card itself. I always feel like I have to clarify.

56:15

You do have to. Truth in advertising,

56:17

like the entire thing is not free. No. But

56:20

the shipping is free. But the shipping is free. Yeah. People

56:22

are probably familiar with the concept of free shipping and

56:25

it not necessarily implying a free product,

56:27

but just to clarify. Just in case.

56:29

We just want, you know, we want there to be

56:31

truth in advertising. I don't want to get tops

56:33

in trouble here. Yeah. Ben, I don't know

56:35

for sure because we haven't seen

56:38

the cards, but I wouldn't be surprised

56:40

for instance if that Royce Lewis home run

56:42

was in a tops now card. That seems to be tops

56:44

now worthy. Could be. I mean,

56:45

I would think that Liam Hendricks, if

56:48

he, whether his return gets

56:50

a card or his first outing gets a card

56:52

like Liam Hendricks, I would guess he's

56:54

going to get himself a tops now card again. We

56:57

have no foreknowledge of the tops card now

56:59

card selection. We don't. But, but

57:01

generally when I see him, I'm like, yep, that

57:03

makes sense. Yeah. And rarely do

57:05

I see them and not see a

57:07

thing that seems like it was now worthy.

57:10

So I think they do a decent job of

57:12

selecting those things. So go check them out

57:14

because they're available for a

57:16

limited time only. There's a new selection of

57:19

cards every day. So check out

57:21

tops now. There's a link on the show page and

57:23

the tagline goes, your hero, your

57:25

team, your moment. And our

57:28

hero for this segment is actually

57:30

going to be a guest. Stop blaster.

57:32

We're going to have a little help with this one.

57:35

I don't think there is a stauncher ally

57:37

in baseball media when it comes to

57:39

the zombie runner. Then Rob means of

57:42

baseball prospectus. It makes me happy

57:44

every time I read one of his pieces

57:45

because so often he will mention

57:47

the zombie runner with scorn and

57:50

spite that normally only I can

57:52

muster. So not only is

57:54

he an ally, just in the general campaign

57:57

against the zombie runner, but also in the campaign.

57:59

to call it the zombie runner. And you

58:02

just can't take that for granted when you read baseball

58:04

writing these days. So naturally, I

58:06

perked up when Rob wrote something about

58:08

the zombie runner last week because

58:11

I know that, like me, Rob is always

58:13

looking for ammunition in the fight,

58:15

which is not to suggest that he would

58:17

be biased in his research, not

58:20

at all. Never. However,

58:22

if he did uncover something that

58:24

was notable about the zombie runner, then he might

58:26

be motivated to bring it to our attention. So

58:29

Rob

58:29

joins us now. Hello, Rob. Welcome

58:32

back. Hi, Ben. Hi, Meg. So

58:35

you wrote about the impact of the zombie runner on

58:37

home field advantage. How did you

58:39

get interested in this topic? Well,

58:42

I wasn't intending to go after the zombie

58:45

runner. Just worked out that way.

58:48

I was talking to my parents

58:51

on a Zoom call and my dad, who really doesn't

58:53

care about baseball but tries to ask

58:56

a question of me, just to feign

58:58

interest, asked me

58:59

whether home teams do

59:02

better in extra inning games. And

59:04

my inclination was to say, well, sure, because

59:07

you can walk a team off, you know, you know

59:09

exactly how many runs you have to score.

59:11

It would seem that the ability

59:14

to score runs without having the

59:16

other team respond would, you

59:18

know, that would be an advantage. When

59:20

I looked at the numbers, though, it turned

59:23

out that was not the case. Overall,

59:26

teams win, you know, about 54% of home

59:28

games and roughly 54% of home games that finish

59:34

within nine innings. But if you

59:36

look back over the entire arc

59:39

of the 30-team

59:40

era, you know, since 1998,

59:42

they've won only 52% of

59:45

games that are in extra innings, two

59:48

percentage points less, which is, you know, it's not a

59:50

big difference, but over a sample

59:52

of going back, you know, more than two decades,

59:55

that's not a small sample size.

59:58

And so I was looking at the individual year.

59:59

years and lo and

1:00:02

behold, guess what I

1:00:04

found out that the teams

1:00:07

playing before the zombie runner that's

1:00:09

in the years 1998 to 2019, the difference in their winning percentage

1:00:12

from the

1:00:16

first nine innings to extraining

1:00:19

games was they dropped about 18 points

1:00:22

of winning percentage. They went from 540

1:00:24

to 521.

1:00:27

In the three years that we've had the

1:00:29

zombie runner, 2021 and 22, teams have still won about 54%

1:00:34

of their games in the first nine innings.

1:00:37

But

1:00:37

you go into extra innings, they've actually been

1:00:40

under 500, 249 and 251, which is not only

1:00:46

not what you would intuitively expect.

1:00:48

It's also not what you'd expect based on the data.

1:00:51

You'd expect the teams to do maybe a little bit worse,

1:00:53

not that much worse. And it

1:00:55

raises a question that I think is valid,

1:00:58

which is what

1:00:59

is going on that is

1:01:01

exacerbating what's in the existing

1:01:04

situation that seems to go

1:01:06

against home teams and what's the zombie runner

1:01:09

doing to make that situation

1:01:11

worse. Right. Do you have an

1:01:13

explanation for why home teams historically

1:01:16

have not done as well in extra inning games

1:01:18

as in non-extra inning games?

1:01:20

Do I personally? No. Because

1:01:22

one of our smart commenters and

1:01:24

baseball prospectus, yes, a guy came

1:01:27

up with a possibility that I thought

1:01:30

about and I think it may make sense. And

1:01:32

it's the old don't bring in your

1:01:35

best reliever and the tie game

1:01:37

when you're on the road. It may

1:01:39

be a situation that if you go into extra innings

1:01:41

and you're the home team, you're not

1:01:44

necessarily going to have your

1:01:47

closer on the mound to start the 10th. However,

1:01:50

if the

1:01:50

visiting team can score in the top of the

1:01:52

10th or the top of the 11th or whatever, they

1:01:54

are more likely to bring in their

1:01:56

closer if they haven't burned him already. So

1:01:59

I think it could be a.

1:01:59

and I haven't looked at the data to

1:02:02

check this, but I think that explanation does

1:02:05

make sense that the first mover

1:02:07

advantage for the visiting team

1:02:10

may give them an advantage in

1:02:12

terms of bullpen strategy as well.

1:02:14

Yeah. It may have been another

1:02:16

BB commenter who mentioned this, but could

1:02:18

it also be just that extra

1:02:21

inning games tend to be toss-ups? By

1:02:23

their nature, the fact that they go to extra innings,

1:02:25

they're close games, and so some

1:02:27

of the randomness that comes into one-run

1:02:30

games, extra inning games often are one-run

1:02:33

games or are similarly close.

1:02:36

I guess you could say that, well, I

1:02:38

will get into this when we talk about the zombie runner that

1:02:40

maybe the longer the game goes,

1:02:42

the greater the advantage could be

1:02:44

for the home team if it's cumulative,

1:02:47

if it's not concentrated in certain

1:02:49

innings. I know there's some research

1:02:51

that says that maybe it's the first inning when

1:02:54

the home field advantage is most pronounced

1:02:56

that visiting pitchers do worse. But if it

1:02:58

was incremental advantage, the

1:03:01

more you play and the longer you play, then

1:03:03

maybe if the game didn't go as long, if

1:03:06

you're talking about it's tied for most

1:03:08

of the game and then the separator is, however

1:03:11

many innings you play in extras, then there

1:03:13

would be less time

1:03:14

for the home team to accumulate that

1:03:16

advantage. Does that make some sense? Yeah,

1:03:18

that actually does. That was a second test

1:03:22

that one of the readers suggested I do. It said, why

1:03:24

don't you look at games that are tied after eight

1:03:27

and see how the home team does. And what I did

1:03:30

is I made a subset of that tied after eight,

1:03:32

but completed within nine. So you

1:03:34

don't have the pollution of what might happen in extra

1:03:36

innings going on. And sure enough, again, the

1:03:39

home team's winning percentage dropped by about two

1:03:41

percentage points. Now the corollary

1:03:43

of that, which made me think as well,

1:03:45

maybe it's just a basic question that

1:03:49

the teams that wind up going

1:03:51

into extra innings

1:03:53

are not the better teams, that the best teams,

1:03:55

they win, and then they don't have to play

1:03:57

beyond that. And I look at home.

1:03:59

teams. And I looked into that theory.

1:04:02

That was my theory completely wrong.

1:04:04

There's absolutely no relationship between

1:04:06

Team One Lost Record and propensity to play

1:04:09

x-ray training games. So at home. So scratch

1:04:11

that. But I think the idea that close games

1:04:13

just tend to sort of throw the home

1:04:15

field advantage for a loop makes

1:04:18

sense. Mm-hmm. Okay. So

1:04:20

you dove into the year by year

1:04:23

data to see whether this theory

1:04:25

made sense, this hypothesis that the zombie

1:04:27

runner has made it harder for

1:04:29

home teams

1:04:29

to win an extra inning. So what happens when

1:04:32

you look at it more granularly and

1:04:34

go season by season? Yeah, that's

1:04:37

where. And in my defense of what

1:04:39

I'm going to say, which is sort of going

1:04:41

to torpedo some of my hypothesis,

1:04:43

I did write my entire baseball prospectus

1:04:46

annual essay this year on the evils

1:04:48

of the zombie runner. Yes. So I'm not trying to clear

1:04:50

anybody here. However,

1:04:52

if you look at it year by year in 2020, teams, home teams

1:04:56

were 34 and 34 in x-ray innings. In 2021,

1:05:02

they were 102 and 114. That's a 472 winning percentage.

1:05:04

However, last season,

1:05:09

they were 113 and 103, which is 52.3%, which

1:05:11

is about, you know, in line with long-term averages. And

1:05:19

we're not far into the season, but home

1:05:21

teams have been sensational extra

1:05:24

innings so far this year. They're 36 and 25. That's

1:05:27

a 590 winning percentage. And

1:05:29

so I had an idea that maybe it's

1:05:32

a matter of what I call the simulation.

1:05:35

Maybe home teams went into

1:05:37

this with some strategies.

1:05:39

I'm not sure which ones that didn't seem to

1:05:41

work out. They refined them. Maybe

1:05:44

it's using your better relievers in the top of the

1:05:46

10th. I'm not sure that now they're doing

1:05:48

better in extra innings. So I think that

1:05:50

there may be, you know, we may

1:05:52

see what happened in 20 and 21 dissipate.

1:05:57

Okay. So we still don't have a huge

1:05:59

sample.

1:05:59

of zombie runner seasons. Of course, 2020

1:06:02

was a shortened season. So

1:06:05

when I saw your article, this sparked a memory

1:06:07

in me of a years old article

1:06:10

that talked about the impact of the zombie runner

1:06:12

on home field advantage in the minors, which

1:06:15

at the time that piece was published, suggested

1:06:18

that there had been a similar impact that

1:06:20

it was harder for home teams to win with the zombie runner.

1:06:22

And since the zombie runner has been in effect

1:06:24

in the minors since 2018,

1:06:27

and you've got lots of teams and lots of levels

1:06:29

and a bigger

1:06:29

sample there, I suggested that

1:06:32

you try to look into that. It's

1:06:34

kind of tough to acquire that data,

1:06:37

but you did with assistance from some

1:06:39

people at BP. So does

1:06:41

that support or refute our

1:06:45

hypothesis here?

1:06:46

Yeah, and all hail to Robert Awe

1:06:49

at Baseball Perspectives for getting this data

1:06:51

for me. Unfortunately,

1:06:55

we may not have gotten exactly the results

1:06:57

that you and I might have wanted or the three of

1:06:59

us might have wanted. And what

1:07:01

I did is I looked at

1:07:04

the four years before the zombie

1:07:06

runner, 14, 15, 16, 17, and then the four years after 18, 19, 21, and 22. And

1:07:13

I looked at for,

1:07:15

and they fiddled with the minor leagues, so not

1:07:18

all leagues were around for all eight seasons,

1:07:20

but for leagues that were in operation

1:07:22

for all eight of those years, I broke

1:07:24

down AAA, AA, and rookie

1:07:26

ball. And one

1:07:28

thing I will say about the minor leagues

1:07:31

is that you don't have as pronounced

1:07:33

a home field advantage as you do in the majors.

1:07:36

And it's pretty, it's maybe about a 52 and

1:07:38

a half percent or so home

1:07:40

team winning percentage. And think about it, if

1:07:43

you're a class A team and you got a short

1:07:45

right field fence, you can't build

1:07:47

a team of all left-handed pole hitters. You

1:07:50

know, you're going to, you can't optimize

1:07:52

your roster for your home park the way you can

1:07:54

in the major. So you've got that to work with.

1:07:57

But here's what I found AAA.

1:07:59

If you look over

1:08:02

the four years before

1:08:04

the zombie runner was in, triple eight teams

1:08:07

won I had fifty two

1:08:09

point six percent of their

1:08:11

games in the complete within nine

1:08:13

innings. They won 53.5 percent

1:08:16

afterwards. So they actually did nine points

1:08:19

better after Nine

1:08:21

innings than they did before Once

1:08:23

the zombie runner came in they had a 5 15 winning

1:08:26

percentage in the first nine innings

1:08:28

went down the winning percentage in the

1:08:31

in extras actually went up 53.9 percent, so

1:08:33

they had a

1:08:34

24 point

1:08:37

increase in their winning percentage post

1:08:39

zombie runner, which nets out to being

1:08:42

that they were 15 points

1:08:44

better

1:08:45

with the zombie runner and extra innings then

1:08:47

without So then

1:08:49

looked at double-a and I won't give

1:08:51

you all the numbers here But when double-a

1:08:54

teams did about nine points

1:08:56

worse in

1:08:58

The first nine innings before the zombie

1:09:01

runner and they did about nine points

1:09:03

worse in the first nine innings after the

1:09:05

zombie runner So the zombie runner didn't make a

1:09:07

difference and make things worse didn't make it better Class

1:09:10

A where you've got a fairly

1:09:12

robust sample because there are a lot of teams to play a

1:09:14

ball 14 points worse

1:09:17

in extra innings before the zombie runner

1:09:19

and 17 points worse After

1:09:22

we got the zombie runner, so that's

1:09:24

a little bit more in line with what we saw in the majors

1:09:26

But it's not a big difference

1:09:28

and then rookie ball 24 points

1:09:31

worse Before

1:09:33

the zombie runner 16 points

1:09:35

worse after so they actually got a little bit

1:09:37

better as well. So overall

1:09:41

what we got is that

1:09:44

minor league teams

1:09:46

Before the zombie runner came into effect

1:09:49

were about 11 points

1:09:51

worse in their winning percentage in Extra

1:09:54

innings then they were in the first

1:09:56

nine innings of games. So that was their deficit 11

1:09:58

points

1:09:59

In the with a zombie runner

1:10:02

that deficit dropped to nine points.

1:10:05

So they've actually done negligibly

1:10:07

better with a zombie runner than

1:10:10

without.

1:10:11

So that made me think, okay,

1:10:13

is there a pattern to this in terms

1:10:15

of the years? Is this acclimation

1:10:17

theory make any sense? And

1:10:20

here are the winning percentage of minor

1:10:22

league teams in extra innings starting

1:10:24

in 2018, which is the first year they all

1:10:26

had the zombie runner.

1:10:30

2016, it dropped down to 503 in 2019. But

1:10:33

then 2021 jumped up to 523 and 2022 jumped up to 525. Now

1:10:40

on one hand, you look at that and you say, yeah, maybe there

1:10:43

is some sort of learning process that

1:10:45

you have to do in extra innings games once you have

1:10:47

the zombie runner. You know,

1:10:50

on the other hand, if there is a learning process,

1:10:52

you think that's something that the major league teams might

1:10:54

have been aware of before this thing

1:10:56

all started. And we didn't see, we didn't, you

1:10:59

know, we saw pretty horrendous

1:11:00

records in extra innings for

1:11:02

the, for in extra innings the first two years

1:11:04

at least of the zombie runner. So

1:11:08

the sample size in the minors, which

1:11:10

is obviously more robust, would suggest

1:11:12

that maybe what we've seen the majors so far

1:11:14

as a mirage, but

1:11:16

I hope not. As

1:11:19

we were saying, if there's something to the idea

1:11:21

that there's less of a home field

1:11:24

advantage in extra innings, just because it's

1:11:26

close and also because there are just fewer extra

1:11:29

innings in which the home team can

1:11:31

separate itself, then it would make

1:11:33

sense in theory that with the

1:11:35

zombie runner shortening extra inning games

1:11:38

so that there are fewer extra innings even

1:11:40

than there were before, then there's

1:11:42

even less time now for the home team

1:11:44

to separate itself. And so that might have some

1:11:47

modest muting effect on

1:11:50

home field advantage, but it would be

1:11:52

small, presumably. And so I guess

1:11:54

you sum it all up, if you just look at

1:11:57

the full major league sample of zombie runner

1:11:59

seasons, then it's good.

1:11:59

It seems like, yes, the zombie runner has certainly

1:12:02

hurt home field advantage, but if you

1:12:05

look at the minors and if you break it

1:12:07

down season by season in the majors, then it

1:12:09

looks more and more like that may

1:12:12

just have been a blip. But time

1:12:14

will tell unless somehow

1:12:16

we are spared the scourge of the zombie runner.

1:12:18

Right. By the way, with the asterisk, of

1:12:21

course, that home teams in general do worse

1:12:23

in the minors than the majors. So there's less

1:12:25

of an advantage for them to fritter away, I guess. Well,

1:12:28

here's my question for both

1:12:29

of you. Would this actually

1:12:33

be a bad thing? Right. Because what

1:12:35

we're talking about it is if I add this to

1:12:37

the pile of reasons to oppose the zombie

1:12:39

runner. And I was thinking about whether

1:12:42

that's true. Obviously, I'm inclined

1:12:44

to take anything as further support.

1:12:47

Like, yes, another reason to

1:12:49

say that the zombie runner is bad. But

1:12:52

this would be far down the list, I

1:12:54

think, on my personal list of arguments

1:12:56

against the zombie runner if it had a

1:12:59

tiny effect on minimizing

1:13:02

home field advantage. I guess that

1:13:04

gets to the question of is home field advantage

1:13:07

good? I mean, it's a fact.

1:13:09

It's reality, not just in baseball,

1:13:11

but pretty much every sport. And it's incredibly

1:13:13

consistent over time. But

1:13:16

is it a bug or is it a feature or

1:13:18

is it neither? Does it actually

1:13:21

sway our enjoyment of sports

1:13:23

or baseball specifically one way or the other?

1:13:26

Hmm, what a good question, Ben. Does

1:13:29

it sway? I guess if

1:13:31

you want to make an argument in favor of home

1:13:33

field advantage, you might

1:13:36

argue that in general,

1:13:38

it's nice for the fans

1:13:41

who actually go to the ballpark

1:13:44

question mark, because presumably

1:13:47

not always, but they are often going to

1:13:49

be fans of the home team.

1:13:52

They are going to root, root, root for

1:13:54

the home team, as it were. And

1:13:56

so maybe it is good to have

1:13:58

a slight.

1:13:59

home field advantage

1:14:02

to satisfy the folks who actually

1:14:04

make their way out to the ballpark, even if it's

1:14:06

only a marginal one, you know. And like,

1:14:08

it's not as if you go in and you're like, I'm

1:14:11

never going to see a win today because, you know, home

1:14:13

team, you know, home team. That's not the way

1:14:15

that you interact with it, but maybe it's good

1:14:17

that it's slightly more likely

1:14:19

that I see a win. I don't know.

1:14:21

I was thinking that too, although

1:14:23

I guess then the question is when does it become

1:14:26

too much advantage? Because

1:14:28

what if the home team just won the

1:14:30

vast majority of the time and home

1:14:33

fans always went home happy? Well,

1:14:35

that would be bad, right? Because then

1:14:38

the outcome would be too predictable. If you

1:14:40

just won all your home games and lost

1:14:42

all your road games, then that would be boring.

1:14:45

There'd be no suspense. And

1:14:47

so you could say, okay, well, if suspense is

1:14:49

good, if you want uncertainty

1:14:51

in the outcome, then actually

1:14:53

it would be better for there to be no home field

1:14:55

advantage whatsoever, right? So

1:14:58

that's kind of if you take it to the logical

1:15:00

extremes, either home field advantage is

1:15:02

good. Therefore, we want home teams

1:15:05

to win more. It would be better if they won even more.

1:15:07

And then you think, well, actually that would be bad.

1:15:09

So if we take that to the logical extreme, then maybe

1:15:11

it's bad to have any edge. But

1:15:14

I think you're kind of right. Like, it's not enough

1:15:17

to notice really. You could

1:15:20

go to the ballpark

1:15:21

every day and you

1:15:23

wouldn't actually be able to perceive. I mean,

1:15:26

you win 54% of your home games, roughly.

1:15:29

You wouldn't even notice that,

1:15:31

especially if you're not going to every single

1:15:33

game. So it's just a little nudge.

1:15:36

It's just a little extra likelihood

1:15:39

of the home fans going home happy. But

1:15:42

it's so subtle that they

1:15:44

don't perceive it as affecting

1:15:47

the uncertainty of the outcome.

1:15:49

So it's just

1:15:51

the right amount of edge.

1:15:53

I feel like it's dialed in at

1:15:55

a good level. Yeah. Yeah.

1:15:57

I mean, there's a little bit of a straw man argument.

1:16:00

it, but it's better than it is in just about every

1:16:02

other sport, right? And NFL,

1:16:04

NHL, and NBA, I think, have more – and

1:16:07

I think soccer, I don't know. But

1:16:10

they all have better home team advantages, I

1:16:12

believe, than MLB does.

1:16:16

So if it's a bug, it's less of a bug

1:16:18

here than elsewhere. And I guess the other

1:16:20

advantage, because people might hear

1:16:22

you say that and wonder why, right? And

1:16:25

home field advantage, like what subject

1:16:27

has inspired more research

1:16:29

over the years than the cipher,

1:16:31

the mystery of home field advantage? Everyone

1:16:34

trying to figure out why does it exist? Why is it

1:16:36

more pronounced in some sports than others? Just

1:16:39

the literature in baseball alone, people

1:16:41

trying to determine, well, is it that

1:16:43

you know the nooks and crannies of the ballpark?

1:16:46

Is it that you get to

1:16:48

sleep in your own bed before the game

1:16:50

and you're bed arrested and

1:16:53

you didn't have to travel and you're not jet lagged

1:16:56

or you know

1:16:58

the batter's eye or whatever it

1:17:00

is, right? Or maybe it's the officiating,

1:17:03

as people have suggested. Maybe it's the umpires

1:17:05

who are subtly swayed by not wanting

1:17:08

to anger the home crowd and be

1:17:10

booed on close calls. So there's

1:17:12

just such a body of work

1:17:14

over the decades of people trying to answer those

1:17:17

questions that for geeks

1:17:19

like us who are interested in the minutia

1:17:21

of sports, we just devoted this segment to

1:17:23

talking about whether the zombie runner has slightly,

1:17:26

slightly made home teams a

1:17:29

little bit less likely to win in extra

1:17:31

innings. And I'm just, I'm interested in that. I'm

1:17:33

interested in why that would be. So

1:17:36

for the kind of people who get into the nitty gritty,

1:17:38

I guess it's given us a lot to talk about over the

1:17:40

decades. So Rob,

1:17:43

we will link to your article on the show

1:17:45

page. Thank you

1:17:46

for looking into this so diligently and

1:17:48

for carrying on the campaign against

1:17:50

the zombie runners. We're just voices

1:17:54

wondering in the wilderness, crying out and

1:17:56

largely being ignored, but I'm glad

1:17:58

that we're keeping it up.

1:17:59

Yeah, and thanks for the idea of looking at the minor

1:18:02

league teams, even though the answer wasn't

1:18:04

quite as satisfactory as we might

1:18:06

have wanted. Yeah, again, I don't know if

1:18:08

I have a horse in this race. I definitely

1:18:11

am anti-zombie runner, but I just don't

1:18:13

know how much this affects my anti-

1:18:15

I'm already all the way anti. Right.

1:18:17

You can't be, you

1:18:20

know, for you, you're animated

1:18:22

about it then. Yeah. And I don't think

1:18:24

this is something that will really help

1:18:27

the cause, you know? I don't think this will produce

1:18:29

a lot of converts,

1:18:29

even if we could convincingly demonstrate

1:18:32

that it did subtly suppress

1:18:34

home field advantage. I don't think that would change a lot

1:18:36

of minds and switch people over into

1:18:38

the anti-zombie runner camp. So it

1:18:40

may be neutral. It's just, it's kind

1:18:42

of curious and I was curious. So before

1:18:45

we let you go, Rob, that was not the only piece

1:18:47

you wrote last week. You wrote

1:18:49

a piece headlined, The Man Who Got the Disabled

1:18:51

List, Change to the Injured List, which

1:18:54

shared a little bit of history that I was

1:18:56

not aware of. And judging by the

1:18:59

comments and the Twitter reaction,

1:18:59

a lot of other people were not aware

1:19:02

of. So can you tell us

1:19:04

why you wrote about this? There was

1:19:06

a specific reason why you did it now and

1:19:09

why you got interested, how you got interested

1:19:12

in this change from the

1:19:14

DL to the IL, which we've all become accustomed

1:19:16

to. Yeah. And I was not aware of the

1:19:18

history either until this

1:19:21

event occurred. I have a cousin, first

1:19:24

cousin once removed, who lived

1:19:27

in Boston and I used to see him once

1:19:29

a year

1:19:29

or so. And he

1:19:32

had a disability. He was a Paralympian,

1:19:35

was on the US Paralympic

1:19:37

soccer team twice and

1:19:40

was a disability advocate.

1:19:42

And that's pretty much

1:19:45

what I knew of him, of my cousin Ben

1:19:47

Wolf. His wife, also

1:19:50

a disability advocate, is a physician,

1:19:53

but was an eight-time winner of

1:19:56

some international marathons in the

1:19:58

wheelchair division and was a

1:19:59

also a Paralympian, and

1:20:02

they have two young

1:20:04

and adorable kids. And Eli,

1:20:07

who was only 45, tragically died

1:20:10

in April. And when I was at

1:20:13

his memorial service,

1:20:15

somebody mentioned that

1:20:19

he had gotten Major League Baseball to

1:20:21

change the disabled list to the injured list.

1:20:24

And so I asked about this, and

1:20:27

the person who had mentioned this in

1:20:29

her eulogy said that I

1:20:31

should contact Billy Bean, and

1:20:33

so at MLB, who I think

1:20:37

everyone listening is familiar with

1:20:39

him and his role in MLB's

1:20:41

DEI initiatives. Right,

1:20:43

not the the Okone is Billy Bean, the

1:20:46

Billy Bean without the E. Right, right,

1:20:48

right. The BEA

1:20:49

end run. And he

1:20:51

told me of the history of this, and

1:20:54

that Eli had written

1:20:56

him a letter, not emailed,

1:20:59

but written him a letter in

1:21:01

the fall of 2018, saying that he

1:21:05

felt that the disabled list should

1:21:08

not be called that. The reason

1:21:10

being that, and this is a

1:21:12

name that baseball has used since 1915,

1:21:15

if I remember right,

1:21:18

and virtually every other sport, it's an injured

1:21:20

list or an injured reserve list, but baseball

1:21:22

uses the terminology disabled. And

1:21:24

Eli wrote that the term

1:21:27

to call it a disabled list to say

1:21:29

that players can't perform because they're disabled

1:21:32

implies that people with disabilities

1:21:35

can't

1:21:36

perform athletic feats. And obviously,

1:21:38

that's not true. Yeah, you

1:21:41

know, he and his wife, for example, millions

1:21:44

of others are examples. And he said that

1:21:46

injured would be a better moniker

1:21:49

for the injured list.

1:21:51

I talked to another disability advocate

1:21:53

who had worked with Eli on a number of initiatives.

1:21:56

And he told me that Eli had sent

1:21:59

a similar letter to MLB

1:22:02

earlier during Bud Selig's

1:22:05

term and it was politely

1:22:07

answered but nothing came of it and

1:22:10

what Billy said the difference this

1:22:12

time was for one thing this

1:22:14

was something that had to get approved by the

1:22:17

Players Association as well as by MLB

1:22:19

and this was between CBA negotiations

1:22:22

so the lines of communication were pretty open

1:22:25

and congenial and

1:22:29

Billy said that when

1:22:30

he brought it to Dan

1:22:32

Halen and to Rob Manfred they

1:22:35

were very supportive what

1:22:37

the other person I spoke with who

1:22:39

worked with Eli a retired professor

1:22:42

named Ted Fay told me is that

1:22:44

Billy was the difference and that he

1:22:47

advocated for this he just said this makes

1:22:49

a lot of sense and this

1:22:51

was not a long drawn-out process

1:22:54

he got the

1:22:55

letter late in 2018 and in early 2019 Jeff Passen

1:22:58

broke the news

1:23:02

that MLB was going to change the disabled

1:23:04

list to the injured list and there's

1:23:07

an article you can access on Sabre

1:23:09

that talks about some of the online reactions

1:23:11

to this and as I said in my article

1:23:14

you'd get exactly the kind of reactions

1:23:16

from exactly the type of the people you'd

1:23:18

expect to react that way but by and large

1:23:21

this went pretty smoothly and

1:23:25

Eli and Billy and other people

1:23:27

that MLB kind of worked with teams

1:23:30

worked with broadcast crews just to remind

1:23:32

them that we're not using disabled we're using

1:23:34

injured and to me it's

1:23:37

it's become a pretty seamless

1:23:40

transition in that you know it

1:23:42

may not only does it make sense to call the

1:23:45

injured list not only is it given

1:23:47

the argument that Eli

1:23:50

said the right thing to do but it's a simple

1:23:52

thing to do and it's

1:23:55

I think a meaningful change one

1:23:57

that I was not aware of its genesis I didn't

1:23:59

understand the import of it, but one

1:24:02

I think that makes the sport better.

1:24:04

Yeah, I think so too. It's

1:24:06

such a simple change. I mean, it

1:24:08

was like flipping a switch, okay? It's

1:24:10

called this and not that now. And obviously,

1:24:13

there was a bit of an adjustment period,

1:24:16

a hundred years of habit of calling

1:24:18

it one thing and then having to learn

1:24:20

to call it a slightly different thing. And you

1:24:23

still hear people in the wild will

1:24:25

call it the DL from time to time, just

1:24:27

out of ingrained habit, you grew up with

1:24:29

that term. But it's the

1:24:32

simplest thing. And if you just

1:24:34

get used to it, then you don't even

1:24:36

think about it anymore, really. It just becomes

1:24:38

the new term, the new habit. So, just

1:24:41

such a simple thing. And as

1:24:44

you said, just a more accurate term and

1:24:46

a less exclusionary term, just a

1:24:49

nice change overall and

1:24:52

maybe a high impact

1:24:54

one relative to the effort it

1:24:56

took to implement it. Well,

1:24:58

and I think that because other

1:25:00

sports do use injured

1:25:02

and injured reserve as the vernacular, I mean,

1:25:04

you're right that there was a transition, but I was struck

1:25:07

at the time by how quickly,

1:25:09

there are still times where you'll turn

1:25:11

on a Guardians game and the

1:25:14

visiting broadcast will slip up and refer

1:25:16

to them by their old name. But

1:25:19

I don't really see that happen

1:25:21

very often anymore.

1:25:23

And I think because we already had, you

1:25:25

know, for folks who are fans of other sports, they already

1:25:27

had this frame of reference. It was a really easy

1:25:30

shift. And yeah, there were some trolls

1:25:32

at the time, but even that response, I

1:25:34

think was fairly muted

1:25:37

when you think about how that segment

1:25:40

of the MLB fan base

1:25:42

sometimes reacts to any kind of change

1:25:44

that's perceived to be progressive

1:25:46

or toward greater inclusion. Right.

1:25:49

Right. Yeah. And I guess also

1:25:51

just the fact that he

1:25:53

made the same appeal, I assumed that the

1:25:56

letter he wrote both times was probably pretty

1:25:58

similar and it

1:25:59

worked one time and did not

1:26:02

work the other time just as

1:26:04

a product of, you know, not his appeal

1:26:06

presumably or of the righteousness

1:26:10

of the cause. But just because

1:26:12

maybe it was society as a whole had

1:26:15

changed in some ways that made people

1:26:17

more receptive to it at MLP, but it also

1:26:19

might just be that there was literally

1:26:22

one person who had a job

1:26:24

and a position there to do something about that

1:26:26

and to be open to that who was

1:26:29

not there previously,

1:26:29

which I guess that position

1:26:32

existing is a product of

1:26:34

that larger societal change, but still

1:26:36

just goes to show that having even

1:26:39

one person in place who would have

1:26:42

that be something kind of in their

1:26:44

remit or something that they would be receptive to

1:26:46

that could make all the difference between something

1:26:49

being embraced or not. Well, condolences

1:26:52

on Eli's loss or

1:26:54

the loss of Eli, but I'm

1:26:57

glad you could bring that story to light.

1:26:59

It's a

1:26:59

nice legacy. It is.

1:27:02

I just, you know, I'm sorry

1:27:04

I found out about it the way I did, obviously. Yeah.

1:27:06

Well, thanks so

1:27:08

much for joining us today to talk

1:27:11

about both of these things and to do

1:27:14

research into the zombie runner. And

1:27:17

we're always happy to have you on. Always enjoy

1:27:19

reading you and highly recommend

1:27:21

that others do as well.

1:27:23

Well, thanks. Great talking to you too again. Appreciate

1:27:26

it.

1:27:26

All right. So we will wrap up with

1:27:28

the Pass Blast, which comes to us from

1:27:31

David Lewis, who is an architectural historian

1:27:33

and baseball researcher based in Boston, also

1:27:35

comes to us from 2013. The

1:27:38

league bans home plate collisions,

1:27:41

David writes. At the 2013 Winter Meetings, Major

1:27:44

League Baseball's Playing Rules Committee voted to prohibit

1:27:46

potentially dangerous collisions on plays

1:27:49

at the plate. Then San Francisco Giants

1:27:51

manager Bruce Bochy, a former catcher himself,

1:27:54

made a presentation to the committee in support

1:27:56

of the

1:27:56

rule change. He summed his position up

1:27:58

well, saying, I think it's

1:27:59

better to be proactive before we carry a guy

1:28:02

off the field paralyzed and think why didn't we

1:28:04

change this rule. Some supported

1:28:06

the rule on principle but worried about its implementation

1:28:09

and how it might affect how the game was played. Then

1:28:11

Tigers manager Brad Osmas, also a

1:28:13

former catcher, said, I'm a little bit old

1:28:16

school in the sense that I don't want to turn home plate

1:28:18

into just another tag play. This

1:28:20

is a run. This is the difference between possibly

1:28:22

making the playoffs and not making the playoffs. It

1:28:24

should matter a little bit more. In my mind, I'd love

1:28:26

to see something that if there's a collision, any hit

1:28:29

above the shoulders,

1:28:29

maybe the runner is out. I don't know how

1:28:32

it's going to pan out. Mets GM

1:28:34

Sandy Alderson spoke on behalf of the rules committee

1:28:36

explaining why the proposed change came about and

1:28:38

why they voted to support it.

1:28:40

Ultimately, what we want to do is change the culture

1:28:42

of acceptance, that these plays are ordinary

1:28:45

and routine and an accepted part of the game, that

1:28:47

the risks and individual risks, the costs

1:28:49

associated in terms of health and injury, just

1:28:52

no longer warrant the status quo. The

1:28:54

new rule, David concludes, while not fully

1:28:56

worked out by the time of the winter meetings vote sought

1:28:58

to treat plays at the plate like tag plays

1:29:01

at other bases. The catcher would need to

1:29:03

provide the runner a lane and would risk an obstruction

1:29:05

penalty if he did not. Similarly,

1:29:07

the runner would be penalized if he chose

1:29:09

to barrel

1:29:10

into the catcher instead of taking the provided

1:29:12

lane. You can make those plays without

1:29:15

putting your body on the line, Angels manager Mike

1:29:17

Sosia, another former catcher said. I think

1:29:19

that's what the game is trying to get to. After

1:29:21

passing through the rules committee, the collision rule

1:29:24

was approved by the MLBPA and was used

1:29:26

beginning with 2014 spring trading. Good

1:29:29

rule, glad we have it. Still

1:29:31

sometimes confusion about this

1:29:33

rule, about the way

1:29:35

it's applied, but also I think

1:29:37

the way it's understood by fans

1:29:40

sometimes.

1:29:40

Like did you have possession

1:29:42

and are you allowed to be there or not? So I think

1:29:45

there's still a little bit of uncertainty

1:29:47

sometimes about what is actually allowed,

1:29:49

but we've definitely cut back significantly

1:29:53

on the dangerous kind of plate collisions

1:29:55

and I don't miss them. So

1:29:58

happy to have this rule.

1:29:59

I think they

1:30:02

get beat up enough back there without

1:30:05

having to risk such a terrible career

1:30:07

altering, in

1:30:10

some cases, potentially career ending, and certainly damaging

1:30:12

to them as people. So it's good,

1:30:14

this is good.

1:30:15

Yeah, and on behalf

1:30:17

of Grant Brisby, who always points this out, I feel

1:30:19

obligated to say that even though people refer

1:30:22

to this as the Buster Posey rule, there

1:30:24

was a gap between this

1:30:27

rule being instituted and Buster

1:30:29

Posey's injury, which happened in May 2011.

1:30:32

And again, this was very late 2013. And

1:30:36

obviously like the Posey injury,

1:30:38

I think contributed to the

1:30:41

acceptance of all of this and the idea that,

1:30:43

okay, maybe we should do something about this.

1:30:45

And you had Bruce Pochy, who

1:30:47

was Posey's manager making

1:30:50

a case for it. Although even Posey

1:30:52

at the time said that he

1:30:54

wasn't supporting it just to protect Posey

1:30:57

because of Posey, that Pochy actually

1:31:00

remembered a different catcher collision

1:31:02

with Gary Bennett, whom Bochy

1:31:05

managed with the Padres in 2003

1:31:07

and Brian Jordan, the former football

1:31:10

player, just ran into Bennett at

1:31:12

the plate. So it was not just one

1:31:15

injury

1:31:15

that prompted Bochy to support this or

1:31:17

for MLP to change it. And in fact, as Grant

1:31:20

has noted, the proximate cause-

1:31:22

Was to Alex Avila. Yeah, Alex

1:31:24

Avila was injured in the ALCS, that

1:31:27

year and that really started or

1:31:30

renewed the conversation.

1:31:31

It doesn't help that Buster

1:31:33

Posey's injury is specifically

1:31:35

mentioned in MLB's glossary

1:31:37

and entry on collisions at home plate.

1:31:40

Right, yeah, right. So, you know,

1:31:43

much like we might be fighting an uphill

1:31:45

battle both against the zombie runner rule

1:31:47

as a rule and ghost runner

1:31:49

as a phrase, I worry that

1:31:52

Grant is, you know, fighting

1:31:55

for a last cause here. But he has

1:31:57

my sword,

1:31:57

so. Cause these things get flattened.

1:31:59

conflated. When we did our stanky

1:32:02

draft, the Eddie stanky draft, which

1:32:04

was episode 1813, that was a whole

1:32:06

episode where we drafted rules

1:32:09

that were prompted primarily

1:32:11

by one player or one person. But

1:32:14

it gets really kind of squishy

1:32:16

because it's like, was it actually that

1:32:18

one person or was that part of a larger

1:32:20

trend? And after the fact, it

1:32:22

just gets associated with the famous player, Buster

1:32:25

Posey. We know Buster Posey should

1:32:28

be a Hall of Famer, probably will be, whereas

1:32:30

Alex Sevilla may be not the household

1:32:32

name that Buster Posey was and is. So

1:32:35

it's like, after the fact, hey, 2011, 2013, that's

1:32:37

basically the same. Whereas at the time, that's

1:32:42

a couple of years. It seems like a long time. But

1:32:45

decades or centuries later, it's like, yeah,

1:32:47

that's the same time essentially. But

1:32:50

it's interesting because Andrew

1:32:52

McCutcheon

1:32:53

recently spoke up to advocate

1:32:56

a similar rule for base

1:32:58

blocking at other bases. So

1:33:01

this was something that he said just

1:33:03

earlier this month that he feels that

1:33:06

there needs to be another rule

1:33:08

change for other bases because

1:33:11

players are running much more with the

1:33:13

steel rules and everything, the pick off and

1:33:15

step off rules. And so steels

1:33:18

are up and success rates are up, although

1:33:21

it does seem that there, if anything, going

1:33:23

down slightly as the season goes on, not going

1:33:25

up. You wondered like, who's

1:33:27

going to just figure this out as

1:33:30

the season goes along? Will runners exploit

1:33:32

this even more or will defenses

1:33:34

manage to counter it? It seems like, if anything, the

1:33:36

latter is happening more than the former. But the point

1:33:39

is, more running going on. And

1:33:41

so

1:33:41

McCutcheon said, it's inevitable that someone

1:33:43

is going to get hurt. The only thing we can

1:33:45

do is slide cleats first and possibly

1:33:48

injure the fielder or injure both of us. If

1:33:50

MLB is all about preventing injuries like they

1:33:52

do at the plate with the catcher, why isn't there

1:33:54

a rule that says, if you're receiving the

1:33:56

ball on a steel attempt, you can't

1:33:59

block the base? So, this is

1:34:01

really about the idea of like lowering

1:34:04

the leg and just kind of

1:34:06

blocking the base with a knee,

1:34:08

you know, with something hard that the

1:34:10

runner could run into. And

1:34:12

McCutcheon, this article mentions

1:34:15

the Posey injury and

1:34:17

the catcher rule and does sort of lump those two together.

1:34:20

But McCutcheon using the same rationale

1:34:23

that was mustered at the time in support of that catcher

1:34:25

rule. He said, it seems like something really bad has

1:34:27

to happen before a rule change that makes perfect sense

1:34:30

can take place. Why not do something now

1:34:32

to protect the players and also maintain the integrity of

1:34:34

the game? To me, it makes perfect sense to

1:34:36

say you can't block the base, that's it. If the throw

1:34:38

takes you there, okay, I get it, but you

1:34:40

can't intentionally camp out in

1:34:42

the lane. So, we'll

1:34:45

see whether McCutcheon speaking

1:34:47

out in support of this is enough to

1:34:50

really get it on the radar and get something done or

1:34:52

whether it will take another injury

1:34:54

to press the matter. The

1:34:57

article does say

1:34:58

that according to a major league source,

1:35:00

the Joint Competition Committee discussed

1:35:03

a proposal on the issue during the offseason.

1:35:06

The committee decided to monitor the impact

1:35:08

of the extra room for runners provided by the larger

1:35:10

base and revisit whether to act after

1:35:13

the 2023 season. So, I

1:35:15

guess this is something that was being considered

1:35:18

even before McCutcheon's comments.

1:35:19

Yeah, I think that unfortunately,

1:35:22

it often takes like something

1:35:24

catastrophic happening. But if we can be a

1:35:27

little bit proactive and forward-looking,

1:35:30

it's not hard to anticipate the

1:35:33

downside scenarios here, right? The worst-case scenarios.

1:35:35

They're very easy to sort out. So, let's get

1:35:37

ahead of it maybe.

1:35:38

Yeah. If I beat the throw

1:35:40

and the fielder is already there, he said, and I'm

1:35:43

sliding, there is nothing I can do except be

1:35:45

out. My only option is to take the other

1:35:47

guy out. That's all I have. I just

1:35:49

don't understand how there isn't a rule there.

1:35:52

So, there might be some infielders

1:35:55

who had a conflicting perspective

1:35:57

with the outfielder and runner Andrew

1:35:59

McCutcheon.

1:35:59

But, you know, he said, I

1:36:02

think about it all the time, especially now with my knees,

1:36:04

my ankle. Other teams know that

1:36:06

too. You might have somebody who says I know his ankle is bothering

1:36:08

him, so I'm going to drop my leg in front of the base.

1:36:11

If he slides, maybe I can get him out of the game.

1:36:13

That could happen. Someone could be thinking that. Someone

1:36:15

could have a vendetta or something. Who knows? History's

1:36:18

greatest monster it would have to be to intentionally

1:36:21

take out Andrew McCutcheon in that way.

1:36:24

Or almost anyone knowing

1:36:26

that they have something that hurts

1:36:28

and trying to target that. Although,

1:36:30

I'm sure that does happen. Hopefully not to Andrew

1:36:33

McCutcheon. But I guess on the

1:36:35

home plate collisions, maybe it's

1:36:37

even more imperative because

1:36:39

A, the stakes

1:36:41

involved with a run scoring or not, but also

1:36:43

you maybe have time

1:36:46

to work up a fuller head of steam if

1:36:48

you're running from first or from

1:36:50

second and you're coming all the way around, right?

1:36:52

And maybe you have more momentum

1:36:56

once you finally barrel into home plate than

1:36:58

you do when you're sliding

1:37:00

into second. Like there's not, I

1:37:03

guess you have time to reach your top speed.

1:37:05

I just, I don't know whether

1:37:07

the same force would apply there, I guess.

1:37:09

Plus

1:37:12

catchers wear protective equipment that middle

1:37:14

and filters don't. They could just park themselves

1:37:16

at the plate with impunity and runners

1:37:19

could come in at greater ramming speed posing

1:37:21

less danger to the catchers, but maybe more

1:37:23

to themselves. But it's

1:37:26

always, it's been dangerous out

1:37:28

there for the pivot men too

1:37:30

for the second baseman. Like historically speaking,

1:37:33

they have not aged so well relative

1:37:35

to some other positions aside

1:37:37

from catcher. And a theory on that

1:37:39

is that it's because of like double

1:37:42

plays and everything. And there have been some rules

1:37:44

changes on that too. But McCutcheon

1:37:47

advocating for another one here. So for

1:37:49

all we know, future pass blasters,

1:37:52

we'll look back at 2023 as the year when they changed

1:37:55

this rule about sliding. Yeah.

1:37:58

Ben back here just wanted to add.

1:37:59

that the changes to pivots and slide

1:38:02

rules that I referenced a second ago, that was

1:38:04

in 2016. And it'll be mandated

1:38:06

that slides on potential double plays

1:38:09

will require runners to make a bonafide

1:38:11

attempt to reach and remain on the base. So

1:38:13

runners were newly prohibited from altering

1:38:15

their route to the base just to initiate contact

1:38:17

with a fielder. And that was reviewable and

1:38:20

was prompted by a couple of controversial

1:38:22

slides late in the previous season. It was

1:38:24

also, I suppose, important to add that because

1:38:27

replayed review at the same time expanded

1:38:29

to include

1:38:29

the neighborhood play. So you couldn't just

1:38:32

faint at second base on a pivot anymore.

1:38:34

You could be caught doing that now. And so if you

1:38:36

weren't going to give the pivot people that chance

1:38:39

to dance out of the way, then you also had

1:38:41

to make it tougher for runners to try to take

1:38:43

them out. So one rules change, maybe begets

1:38:45

another, and maybe that will happen again after

1:38:47

this season. All right, well, here's a roundup

1:38:49

of the results of those pitchers who

1:38:51

returned to action on Monday. Liam Hendricks

1:38:54

pitched the eighth inning for the White Sox. He gave

1:38:56

up a couple runs, but he got a great

1:38:58

reception. And in that

1:38:59

A's Braves game, Paul Blackburn

1:39:02

gave up one run over four innings. Michael

1:39:04

Siroca gave up four runs over six

1:39:06

innings. And the little old A's beat

1:39:08

the Braves seven to two. What did I tell you?

1:39:10

All they needed was getting Paul Blackburn back.

1:39:13

Also, here's a follow-up for you from episode 1996.

1:39:15

You may recall I advocated

1:39:18

for greater prevalence of exit speeds

1:39:21

being displayed on baseball broadcasts. Pitch

1:39:23

velocities are ubiquitous. You see them on

1:39:25

every single pitch. And I thought, hey, it might

1:39:27

be information overload for some, but I'd

1:39:29

kind of like

1:39:29

to see exit speeds on batted balls

1:39:32

because every now and then there's a situation

1:39:34

where I see a ball off the bat. And I think,

1:39:36

how hard was that hit? Is that going to get out?

1:39:39

There's only a few seconds of suspense. But

1:39:41

if I saw that number and I saw that it was hit

1:39:43

hard enough and seemed to be hit at the

1:39:45

right trajectory, then I might have greater confidence

1:39:47

that, yeah, that ball's gone. Well, here's something

1:39:49

I heard on the Angels broadcast on Saturday.

1:39:52

This is talking about the home run that Brandon

1:39:54

Drury hit the game before. It was

1:39:56

opposite field. It was his first home run of 16

1:39:58