BCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZAAABACADAEAFAGAHAIAJAKALAMANAOAPAQARASATAUAVAWAXAYAZBABBBCBDBEBFBGBHBIBJBKBLBMBNBOBPBQBRBSBTBUBVBWBXBYBZCACBCCCDCECFCGCHCICJCKCLCMCNCOCPCQCRCSCTCUCVCW
1
EpisodeSubmitter & Question
2
2307Simon: I teach English overseas and have the delightful opportunity to introduce baseball to hundreds of middle and high school students in the Czech Republic this year. Hockey and football reign supreme, so I have only had the chance to explain that baseball exists and that Shohei Ohtani is very, very good at it.

That said, I think this might be promising ground for new fans. Czech Republic had a team in the WBC and played against Samurai Japan in Nagoya last November.

So my question is this: which team should I build a fanbase for?

The Dodgers have seemingly locked down Japan, the Braves have Curaçao. Who gets the Czech lands? I'm willing to set aside any personal attachments to find the right fit.

--

Some factors you might consider in your decision making:
Czech fans are known for being rowdy, heavy drinkers, and love a good player nickname.

The nearest big leaguer, by place of birth, to our town was Josef Koukalik, an electrician and skilled bowler who made precisely one start for the 1904 Brooklyn Superbas.

The only player with a "C-Z" in his name was Jim Czajkowski of the 1994 Colorado Rockies.

Or perhaps I should contact every club's social media team and see who will send these kids cool promotional merch. I'm not above selling out, by any means.
3
2299George: With the Dodgers signing Sasaki, could MLB teams be limited to having only two Japanese/NPB players on the roster? I believe NPB teams would welcome this as it would limit the number of Japanese players leaving for MLB with a cap of 60 possible slots, two per MLB team. The player's association would be fine with it as it would ensure that the remaining 1,140 roster spots across the 40 man roster of all 30 teams (1,200 minus 60 Japanese players) would go to American and non-Japanese foreign players. This could also prevent any one team, such as the Dodgers, from gathering too much Japanese talent at any one time. It could also diversify the location of Japanese talent to other MLB clubs. Would this be feasible?
4
2299Kate: The Mariners played a split-squad spring training game yesterday, and Ryan Divish entertainingly reported that second team manager Mike Cameron “demanded to have Julio on his roster in hopes of actually scoring a run under his guidance.” (https://x.com/RyanDivish/status/1897775564003655843) (Cameron’s M’s scored 4, though Julio wasn’t one, and he debated this characterization in a reply, saying he just wanted a “couple horses,” but that’s besides the point.)
Normally, I don’t give split-squad games a second thought. They’re just a part of spring training, after all. But the jockeying for competitive teams made me think about how entertaining it would be if each big league squad had to play at least one genuine split-squad game that counted in the regular season. How would teams divide up their stars? Would they go all-in on just trying to win one, or split up the best players equally?
Presumably, there’d be an even more expansive version of the temporary players for doubleheaders rule, as you’d need more than a 40-man roster to fill two teams. Split-squad games would give a lot of players that otherwise would never sniff the major leagues a cup of coffee. Obviously, this is a very silly idea that would create a lot of headaches. But I’d love to hear your thoughts about if this could be a fun way to add a wrinkle to a regular season — and maybe compress the calendar in the event of a future strike- or lockout-shortened year.
5
2299JJ (Patreon): Should player initiated challenges be included in WAR calculations?
6
2299Luke: I was listening to episode 2290 and the discussion of Jefry Yan and his strike out celebration and it got me wondering.
Do you think MLB umpires will be reluctant to make demonstrative punch out calls once ABS is instituted in MLB and the potential for embarrassment from a big strike out call being overturned?
7
2299Max: Thinking about the end-of-game ABS challenges, I feel like there will be a bunch of unnecessary challenges in the final batters because there is no reason not to use them. A clearly-wrong “why not” challenge of a game-ending pitch would be extra annoying, delaying the celebration for the winning team.
One response I have in mind: if you incorrectly challenge the final pitch of the game, have that team start the next game with an automatic strike/ball (depending on whether they were challenging as a batter or pitcher/catcher). It’s not a huge penalty, but it at least creates *some* cost for extraneous challenges.
First of all, do you think this would work?
Probably more interestingly, do you think this cross-game penalty is baseball-statistical sacrilege?
8
2299Murray (Patreon): I have this MLB expansion idea. The elevation league. Let the Rockies be in a division with a Mexico City team and idk where else. Utah? I guess my only realistic expansion team for the elevation division would be Mexico City. But let there be one division that hits 3x as many home runs!
What bullpen/rotation patterns would we see in that league? Would Chad innings eaters like Jordan Lyles be the primary tool implemented?
9
2299Nathan (Patreon): With Sproing Training upon us, I have a hypothetical for you that is based on the scourge of UCL injuries in baseball. Obviously, the increase in pitcher injuries is multifactorial, but it seems likely (if not clear) that one major factor is pitchers chasing velocity. So, what if there were an equivalent for hitters? Specifically, let’s imagine that swinging for the fences caused a similar uptick in serious (season-ending, career-threatening) injuries to hitters as we have seen among pitchers. How might this change the game? Would we see a more contact-oriented approach? Would there be a sort of mutually assured destruction in chasing dingers and velo that might finally lead to both trends leveling off or receding? I hate to imagine what this scenario might mean for Shohei, or a world where Aaron Judge joins Spencer Strider, Eury Perez, and Jacob deGrom on the shelf all season… but I can’t help but wonder how it would affect the game.
10
2298Reuben: My shock at Patrick Corbin's major-league signing outpaced maybe every non-Ippei baseball headline of the past calendar year. I turn to you, knowing how deeply in the minority I am and that you may be my only hope for a take.

I was struggling to conceptualize this for the Rangers. Over the past four years he has averaged
170 Innings
5.71 ERA
5.91 xERA
4.99 FIP
4.36 xFIP
Obviously it's the innings and as a long-time Fangraphs reader I can stare at the four-year xFIP and pretend that's the pitcher I'm getting. However, due to that consistent xERA, Patrick Corbin is maybe *the single* exception for whom I would jog over to BRef for RA-WAR. Over the last four years, they have him worth -4.1 wins for the Nationals.
Can you help me find a point of comparison for this? For a competitive team in an era that seems to have most teams accurately evaluating players? From an expected value standpoint, it felt as if a "healthy" Anthony Rendon were released today and the Yankees immediately signed him to a major league deal. Historically, it’s as though Felix Hernández had thrown an *additional* year of a sixish ERA at the end of his career, and then a team with playoff aspirations said, "Sure, here’s a major-league contract."

His slider did accumulate positive value last year, so maybe the Rangers run 2019 back. But did that signing make either of you wonder if Chris Young was under duress?
11
2290Peter: I’ve been eagerly anticipating the arrival of the ABS challenge system in the major leagues, and got to witness it in real time for the first time today with the Padres vs Mariners spring training game. The game ended with a called strike 3 for the final out in the top of the ninth, at which point the Padres players ran onto the field to celebrate the win. But there was a hesitation in their joyous hooting and hollering, as the Mariners batter had tapped his helmet to initiate a challenge. The result never felt in doubt to me as a viewer (it was a pretty clear strike), but even so everyone on the field had to sort of awkwardly “pause” to look at the screen confirming the call, and after about 15 seconds the celebration continued.

Now I’m not necessarily against this, and if this is the only price to pay for the ABS challenge system I think the pros far outweigh the cons, but I am wondering how often I should be expecting this type of awkwardness. I think the “game-ending” component of it has a chance to really increase the level of pointless challenges since it’s essentially a zero-risk move. I can already hear the chants of “Delay-BS” if it happens all the time (or maybe something snappier, idk).

Not sure if this is worthy of a stat blast, but I am trying to figure out how often this scenario happened in the minor leagues: for batting teams with a remaining ABS challenge, out of how many instances of a called strike 3 to end the game (presumably in a loss for the batting team) was a challenge immediately initiated? How many times did the challenge overturn the call? I wonder if this will be the “new normal” and end up just being a formality that the other team will always do this, or if there is actual judgment used as to whether it seemed like a borderline call. If it truly is a very close call with game ending implications, then I absolutely want to be 100% sure it is correct, but I just don’t want to be regularly subjected to a half-hearted, relatively pointless delay of game puncturing the moment of victory/defeat.

From my experience, this is barely an issue with the existing major league challenge system and even if a team has a challenge left it is only used if there is reasonable doubt (nobody is challenging a routine fly ball), but I can see the argument that a ball/strike call is a little more obscure and might draw out more challenges. Also, since it is a batter initiating the challenge and not a manager, might we see challenges being used more or less aggressively in that scenario? As a sidebar, I am very excited to see which batters or catchers challenge the most often and how often they are correct, and we can truly measure a player’s confidence (or ego) against how good their plate vision is.
12
2287Cesar: I'm not an NHL fan/follower but the 4 Nations All Star games seem to have made a broader sports relevancy impact recently. That reminds me of the thought I've had that MLB should move the WBC semifinals and final to the All Star break every 4 years.

The All star break is a prime MLB opportunity at a broader sports relevancy outreach when there is no in season competition from the NFL or NBA. Yet the MLB All Star game itself is losing relevancy like it is in all sports. The WBC tournament or a break for professionals for the Olympics are too long to have in season during an MLB 162 game season.

However the WBC opening rounds can still be held in March every 4 years. It could be held later after players have more build up or made a bit longer to get the final four teams. But the 2 WBC semifinal games and the final should be held at the All Star break every 4 years instead of an actual All Star game on that Tuesday ( both semifinals) and Wed (the final). The break from Mar to July would allow for a media build up. It would be a game that matters to the players and is more focused on the players themselves over the teams in the more regional way that MLB fandom has been trending for years. Also by having the game mid season, you could open the rosters for those games to players that may not want to participate in the March games. While the mid season games might carry some injury risks you're only looking at a maximum of 2 games for players so it isn't as big a commitment to players or teams releasing players as the Mar games are.

The WBC final could, over time, become the biggest event MLB could promote every 4 years that could come closest to a Super Bowl/World Cup Final in build up and relevancy to a broader sports viewership.
13
2282Damian: I’ve long heard that teams that are up for sale don’t spend, but why is that exactly? It seems a professional baseball team will never lack for suitors almost no matter what the status of that team’s fortunes or roster are. The sale price will seemingly end up being something around or north of whatever the team’s generally accepted valuation is regardless of whether they sign Jack Flaherty. It’s not like prospective buyers can shop around for a better deal.

Players and agents not wanting to sign on with a team that’s for sale, I could see. GMs not wanting to risk the ire of any as yet unknown future boss I could see. But, I don’t know why ownership wouldn’t give the green light for the front office to do anything that makes sense for the team when it’s unlikely to have any impact on the ultimate sale price and it’ll still be on the new owner to pay out that contract.
14
2276Justin W (Patreon): I've enjoyed all the discourse on competitive balance and spending, in light of the Dodgers' offseason moves. I think it's a positive shift to incentivize owners to take action rather than passively collect income.

Beyond that, I'd imagine global interest in the Dodgers generates value for MLB and baseball as a whole. By growing their slice of the pie, they aren't necessarily taking away from other teams—they're doing their part in helping to expand the entire pie.

I agree with Meg that it's on other teams to pursue their own edge to be build long-term success and grow their brand, fanbase, and value. We've seen with players like Roki Sasaki and Corbin Burnes that money isn't the only factor in choosing where to play.

I wonder: what are creative ways a team could develop that edge within existing constraints to attract both players and fans?

For example, could the Marlins leverage their location and could go all-in on being "Latin America's team"—cultivating predominantly Latin American talent and aggressively marketing to Latino fans?

Or could a team stand out by offering the best quality of life for players—state-of-the-art training and recovery facilities, personal chefs, family-first policies, post-retirement career support?

I'm sure this is just the tip of the iceberg, and I'd love to hear your and listeners' thoughts on more out-of-the-box ideas.
15
2276Scott: A terrible but (hopefully) thought-provoking idea: What if MLB picked one World Series team each year the same way they picked locations for the all-star game - by essentially giving each franchise the nod roughly every 30 years, and letting them know years in advance?
The other team would make it the usual way, via playoffs for which the other 29 teams competed.
When a team knew its turn was coming up in a couple years, would they basically tank in the years prior and then try to get all the free agents available that year, and maybe trade prospects for any good player they could get, attempting to build a super team for their one guaranteed chance at being in the championship? Or would they try to build a team the usual way, but to peak during the year they would get in?
How would they manage the season in which they knew they would be in the World Series? Would they rest players constantly to avoid injury and keep them fresh, knowing they had no need to win during the regular season? What would be the perfect amount of time to play someone so that they would be sharp for the W.S. without being worn out or injured? How much does an MLB team need to play together to get the right balance of chemistry and familiarity with each other on the field?
Would those "pre-selected" teams dominate the World Series every year, because they could focus purely on winning that short series, while other teams were worn out from having to fight their way in? Or would the traditional finalists win because they had proven themselves to be the best team over a long schedule, while the other team was actually unproven - a purely theoretical exercise in constructing a "best team" that had ignored the regular season and playoffs?
One danger for the "pre-selected" team is that they might pick a lot of injury-prone players and then not play them much during the season, saving them until the World Series. But if they weren't ramped up for the intensity of that one series, or got hurt in it, the team could suffer. E.g. sign Jacob deGrom, but then he gets hurt in game one or is ineffective because it's almost like he's pitching a spring training game (even if the pre-selected team played their players during the regular season, they would presumably be waiting around for several weeks while waiting for the playoffs to pick their opponent).
I'm not advocating this horrible idea* actually be implemented, but the discussion could go in interesting directions.
*since two of my favorite franchises have not been in the WS for 30+ years, there is a temptation to suggest something like this. But no - it's a terrible idea.
16
2276Patrick: I recall in a previous episode that Meg mentioned the idea that every MLB team should be required to have a "jersey guy" (I believe this came up in reference to the White Sox and Luis Robert Jr.). That got me thinking—couldn't this concept be something the league realistically implements?
MLB and its owners clearly understand the importance of engaging younger fans, and mandating that each team have a "jersey guy" could play a big role in driving that engagement. Plus, determining who qualifies as a "jersey guy" doesn’t even have to be subjective—they could base it on jersey sales or similar metrics.
For teams that don’t currently roster a "jersey guy," there could be some kind of penalty, like losing access to an international signing pool space or a draft pick. Of course, I imagine there’d be teams trying to exploit the system, like signing a Tim Tebow-type player just to avoid the penalty, but overall I think it’s an idea worth considering.
What are your thoughts on this? Could something like this actually work?
17
2275Rich: Hey gang - this question is centered around roster manipulation and the idea that the dodgers' 6 man rotation and optionless bullpen guys will make it difficult to recover from a bad outing from the starter.

I'm wondering if the high end/high cost bullpen has a secret built in upside.

Suppose a bad start. The bullpen is maxed and gassed. Typically, a team would send down a reliever with options and call up a fresh replacement arm.

As currently constructed, the dodgers wouldn't have anyone to option to AAA, and any player that would have to be sent down in exchange for a fresh arm would have to be put on waivers.

BUT: suppose Tanner Scott is the one put on waivers (for our purposes please assume this hypothetical has been discussed with him and he's on board). His contract is 4/72 - a huge contract for one relief pitcher and a contract that no one else was willing to pay in the first place. That implies that no team would TAKE Tanner Scott if he was put on waivers, as the claiming team would have to take on the remainder of that contract. If the dodgers are confident they can send someone of Scott's caliber down to AAA for a rest and shore up a battered bullpen they totally would. If some team jumps at the chance to claim Tanner Scott, then them's the breaks, but

1) there are a finite number of teams who can handle that contract in the first place (the pirates and rockies are not claiming Tanner Scott, for example)

2) the teams that want a Tanner Scott or someone like him are likely already in playoff position or have an equivalent of some kind that they like better - either for cost or flexibility (options; long man, etc) reasons.

3) The idea of a team like the Padres (div rival; theoretical contender) claiming Tanner Scott to prevent the Dodgers from having him doesn't make any sense in that they didn't bother to sign him in the first place (see #1).

Sure, Tanner Scott being off the roster while in waiver limbo is a drag, but once he's cleared it's just a matter of him hanging out in an ice bath for 10 days and then he's back up in LA and the 14th man on the chart with options is back in Oklahoma.
18
2275Tim: In light of the Dodgers’ signing of Blake Snell - to be followed by Sasaki or others? - it sure seems like they have the opportunity to make a radical strategic pitching advancement. The Dodgers have a ton of very fragile, very viable starters. They’re already considering a 6-man rotation, but what if instead they used game-pairs?

For example, Ohtani starts the game, with the intention of pitching 5 innings. Then he gets pulled regardless of pitch count and Tony Gonsolin comes in to pitch the rest of the game.

There are a few reasons this makes sense:
1) It avoids the 3x through the order penalty
If you assume the collection of quality pitchers the Dodgers have pitch near or more likely below the league average WHIP, they’ll need to go through the opponent batting order 4 times, or twice per pitcher.

2) It protects fragile pitchers who often aren’t going deeper than 4-5 innings anyways.
If the Dodger’s problem is that they don’t have enough available starters for the playoffs, this could help limit fatigue.

3) The 2nd pitcher in a game could still warm up like a starter
Since they can always expect to come in the 5th or 6th inning, they can warm up pretty normally. It’s like they’re starting…just later

4) It reduces the need for high-leverage bullpen arms
Treinan is a free agent. The other arms available aren’t that compelling. But if you can plan to get at least 8 innings out of your “rotation” every game, why would you need to worry about a deep bullpen?

Snell, Glasgow, Ohtani, Yamamoto, Kershaw, Gonsolin, May, Miller, and add to that maybe Sasaki or even a Buehler reunion? That’s most of the way to a fully paired up rotation. These are guys tailor made for giving you 4-5 high quality innings and not worrying about stretching them deep into any games. The Dodgers should upend the entire history of the MLB and go for it. They’ll even bring back the pitcher protagonists narrative in buddy-cop form!

I want to see it!!!
19
2272Carlos: I recently learned about Athletes Unlimited Softball. It is a women's pro softball league, but instead of operating the championship on a team basis (as MLB does), they go by the individual. Players are assigned points based on individual accomplishments like hits, SBs, pitcher Ks, etc. like in fantasy sports. Also, points for team accomplishments (winning a game, "winning" an inning) are given to all the players on that team. Also players and fans vote on game MVPs for extra points. After each series, the four top scoring players draft completely new teams for the next series and the season's champion is not a team, but the individual who gets the most points. That's the gist, but here's a link to their full explanation of the system. It's definitely worth reading through the details.

https://auprosports.com/softball/how-we-play-softball/

I have lots of questions including, but not limited to: People like to call baseball/softball an individual sport masquerading as a team sport, so what do you think of this format where it embraces this side of the game? How do you think this would work in MLB? Situationally, it's a pretty ingenious way to make a compelling team sports league with far fewer resources (Athletes Unlimited has only 60 players and they play all their games in a small Chicago suburb), but how does it translate to the size and popularity of MLB? Would we just see the regular MVPs winning every season? Would the top players hire their own mini "front offices" so they can draft well to get team points? How would the specifics of the points system affect play? Finally, is there a different or better individual player championship baseball format you can imagine?
20
2271Nat: I have a rule modification proposal for you to consider during the baseball news doldrums.
Motivating event: (Jomboy breakdown: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlfnfX5BDI8) Last April, during a game between the A's and the Rangers, the ball was popped up slightly past the pitcher's mound while the infield fly rule was in effect. The pitcher stumbled around quizzically as they often do, leaving the play to the second baseman. He had a long run and attempted a (not that difficult) sliding catch, but it clanked off his glove. The runners had stayed put, assuming infield fly, but the second base ump declined to call it at the last moment (after starting to gesture like he would) on the grounds that the catch attempt wasn't "ordinary effort". This led to an easy double play, with the A's slow tossing the ball to 3rd and then 2nd for force outs.
I don't know how frequently plays like this happen, but it seems to reveal a fundamental flaw in the infield fly rule. The purpose of the rule is to lock in the result of the catch early, so that the runners can make an appropriate decision and not get doubled up on a dropped ball (intentional or not). But with the rule being invoked or not at the end of the play, at the umpire's discretion, the runners don't actually get that clarity. This is a problem on the line between "ordinary" and "extraordinary" effort, and on the line between "pop-up" and "line drive" (it seems to be generally accepted that an infielder with the presence of mind and dexterity to knock down a soft liner rather than catching it deserves the resulting double play).
Proposal: Give the discretion for invoking the infield fly rule to the runners (or batter, or maybe base coach), like a fair catch in football. If a runner believed the catch likely, they could wave an arm to call the play dead and the batter out. If they decline to call it, they accept the risk of a tricky double play and the fielders can do whatever they like.
Would be glad to hear your thoughts.
21
2271Zachary (Patreon): I was discussing the hall of fame with my dad, and specifically the idea of "big hall" vs "small hall" voting, and he mentioned "if I go to the hall and see some random guy that was really good in 1949 but I’ve never heard of him, should he be in the hall of fame?" That made me think of a player who was one of the best players of a decade, but probably won't be remembered 100 years from now, and whether that person deserves to be in the hall of fame or not. To solve this, my dad came up with the idea, "a standard hall of fame vote gets you in for 20 years, but voters can elect you to a lifetime appointment if they choose." There could be variations on this, like not having a separate vote for 20 years vs. lifetime and it instead being based on a voting percentage (players with 90+% get a lifetime election), or the amount of time you stay in, but I'm curious about your thoughts on the concept in general.
22
2271Brad: Possible discussion topic for you. I know that you have both watched I Think You Should Leave, but am not sure if I have heard mention of Tim Robinson and Zach Kanin's other hilarious venture Detroiters.
In S2: E8 "Hark Motors" around the 4:45 mark, we get the following exchange when a competing ad exec uses the following analogy to justify stealing one of Tim and Sam's clients:
Ad exec: "Guy steals second base, right? He's not cheating. He's just trying to win the game."
Sam: "Well, statistically speaking, it's stupid to try and steal second base. I mean, moneyball."
Tim: "It's basic moneyball."
Despite this oversimplification (and failure to fully incorporate success rate), this got me thinking about the colloquial usage and understanding of Moneyball. If you asked a random person or casual observer to identify the most important takeaway from Moneyball, I would have always guessed they would mention walking more, or maybe bunting less. As Moneyball's original publication is now over 20 years ago (yeesh) and perhaps more associated with the movie than the original book, I wonder if people's definition is shifting to include broader sabermetric ideas, i.e. launch angle, third time through the order, etc. Am I wrong in this? What do you think the casual observer thinks of when they hear the term Moneyball?
23
2271Rob Mains (Patreon): Recently in Joe Sheehan's excellent newsletter, the Joe Sheehan Newsletter at joesheehan.com, he was describing a pitcher's fastball as his "number 1." We're familiar with calling a curveball a "deuce." These terms refer to the signals catchers use to call for pitches. With PitchCom obviating catcher signals, will terms like those become obsolete, like "butcher boy," "circuit clout," and "complete game?" Or will the continued use of catcher signals in the minors and at amateur levels ensure continued familiarity?
24
2271Daniel: What would it take for, come October, you all to say “Yup, Ohtani/Mookie/etc sure broke out!” I assume if Ohtani puts up peak Gibson+Bonds numbers that would do it?
25
2271Debbie: My wife who doesn’t care about men’s sports enjoys the pedantic questions you ask. When I told them about the conversation you’ve been having about breakouts they had a good question that I thought I’d ask your insight on too.
Basically if someone meets the general requirements that you’ve been outlining to be considered a breakout by results based stats but their underlining numbers pretty clearly indicate that most if not all of the improvement was based on luck would it be fair to call their season a break out season?
For example if marginal hitter who has been up and down for five years has a season where their traditional stats would say they were the 25th best hitter in baseball but the underlying numbers point to almost all of that improvement coming from an increased BABIP would it be fair when recapping that season to say it was a breakout? I tend to think no because their actual performance didn’t change and if you are trying to predict performance going forwards then there is still not a lot of reason to believe they will stay at their new tier in the future. You could call that a fluky season and if it’s repeated then you can say maybe they broke out by successfully hacking BABIP but the first time it happens I’m inclined not to count as a break out until there is some indication that it is repeatable.
On the flip side, you could say that the medium baseball knowing population (myself included) learned of them for the first time and that they have now broken into public consciousness and even if their performance may not earn much future consideration they are now Someone I Know and by virtue of that are part of the broader collection of characters in baseball and even if they don’t perform well they will stay on the mental list of baseball people I know on the basis of that season.
This situation probably happens less in baseball than other sports because of the longer season but was curious about your thoughts.
26
2270Evan A. (Patreon): I’m in a facebook group for baseball fans that are attempting to visit all 30 MLB ballparks. Plenty of fans have accomplished this, and I was lucky enough to achieve that goal myself in 2024. However, someone in that group posed a much more unrealistic, but hypothetical goal — seeing all 30 teams play in all 30 ballparks. There’s no way even the most devoted fan could accomplish this, but that got me thinking — which player comes the closest? Who holds the record for “most unique matchups participated in”, where, say, Yankees @ Red Sox and Red Sox @ Yankees count as two separate matchups? There are 870 total possible combinations, so I’m wondering if someone like Edwin Jackson got even halfway there.

If you can break it down specifically using current ballparks (or at least ballparks used in the 2024 season, since obviously nobody has played in the stadiums the Rays and A’s will be playing in for 2025), that’d be even better.
27
2268Michael (Patreon): With the Giants' signing of Justin Verlander, it got me thinking about the 2012 World Series (of course). As a Giants fan, the first thing that came to mind was Pablo Sandoval hitting 2 of his 3 Game 1 HRs off of Verlander. But then it got me wondering, how did Buster Posey do against him? Turns out he went 1-2 with a double and sac fly in the regular season, and 1-2 with a single and strikeout in Game 1 of the 2012 World Series.

My question for the more research enabled: is Posey the first POBO/GM to sign a player that he has a hit off of (or any other creative qualifiers of this transaction that you'd like to apply)? I know other POBOs/GMs played in the majors, so it seems likely that it has happened before, but I imagine it must be fairly rare.
28
2267Michael (Patreon): Let's say that after the now inevitablecollapse of the RSN system baseball fails to develop a similarly lucrativereplacement, and revenue collapses so that in 10 years the enterpriseas a whole is taking in 50% of its current revenue. This possibility isdiscussed by nearly everyone as a disaster - and indeed it would be for playersand owners and other people who make their livings in the game - but wouldbaseball actually be all that different to fans? It seems unlikely that many playerswould stop choosing to play the game if the minimum MLB salary was 350k/yearhigh end contracts were $25m/year instead of $50m/year. Maybe someinternational players would stay overseas if the contracts were smaller, andmaybe this would tilt the balance for some multisport athletes. Maybe there'dbe a bit less technology in player dev. But overall it seems to me that theimpact on the game on the field would likely be minimal. Do you agree? And ifso, why exactly are we all so worried about the fate of MLB revenue?
29
2267James L: I was thinking about how MLB is the only pro sport (at least that I'm aware of) that has the expectation of years of further development in the minor leagues before making the majors. In the NFL and NBA, players go directly from college to the pros, and some even went directly from high school to the NBA. There are minor leagues for the NHL, but from what I can tell it's still common for players to go right from the draft to the pros. Does this imply that MLB is more difficult than those other sports, as most players need years of further development to reach the skill level required for the majors? If not, what are the other factors impacting this?
30
2266Derek: Here's a question in the genre of "does this bother you as much as it bothers me?"
On the PBS News Hour last night, it was reported that Juan Soto's "deal is reported to be worth $765 million over 15 years. That would work out to more than a million dollars per home run if he's able to keep up his 2024 output for that whole time."
I initially took issue with this statement because it seems to suggest it's a plausible scenario that Soto could in fact keep up his 2024 production over the entire course of his contract. As great as Soto is, I don't think any reasonable person could realistically expect him to hit over 600 home runs over the next 15 years (though it would be pretty awesome if he actually managed to do that, and I say that even as a Yankees fan ). So it seems like it does a disservice to the audience to imply that this is plausible.
Then I realized that there's another problem here: Hitting fewer home runs would actually increase the number of dollars per home run. So if Soto fails to keep us his 2024 output for the next 15 years, it would still be true that the deal would "work out to more than a million dollars per home run."
So, what say you? Am I justified in thinking that this comment about Soto's contract was not the best journalism?
31
2266Phil: During the 2024 season, 73.1% of all pitches thrown by Tommy Kahnle were changeups. But were they? A changeup must, by definition, be a change from the norm, which is why, in my youth, the pitch was frequently called a change-of-pace. But if nearly three-quarters of the pitches thrown are "changeups," they're not really changeups, are they? What are they a change from? (Yes, I know I ended that sentence with a preposition. Sue me.) Instead, a Kahnle fastball would represent a changeup for him, a change from his normal pitch.
Perhaps it would be better to bring back another term from baseball's past and simply label Kahnle's preferred pitch a slowball. Heck, we could go back a hundred years and call it a down-shoot. Admittedly, that term as originally used referred to something more like today's slider or splitter, but, hey—it's not needed for that anymore. But it seems to me that one cannot properly describe one's most frequently thrown pitch as a changeup.
32
2266Zach: One thought I had about the Golden AB/PA/Batter discourse that I haven't seen discussed, especially in contrast to the already-existing pinch-hitting rules, is baseball's unique approach to substitutions (i.e. players cannot return to games once they are subbed out, whether for hitting, running, defense, etc.). As a Guardians fan, it makes me think about what was widely regarded as AJ Hinch out-managing Stephen Vogt when Vogt brought in his RHH platoon bats (Jhonkensy Noel and David Fry) off the bench in the 2nd inning when Brent Hurter came in, only for Hinch to quickly bring in right-handed relievers (instead of using Hurter as a bulk guy). Will Brennan notably did not record a plate appearance, and Kyle Manzardo, hitting 2nd in the lineup, left after only coming to the plate once. If I were to ask a question, I wonder if an at least slightly more palatable version of this rule would be for it to only be applicable among bench bats, allowing for an extra opportunity to allow them to step to the plate in a leverage situation without formally burning a bench spot/completely removing the bench spot from the lineup. This may not have the same "give me more Trout vs. Ohtani" matchups effect, but would something along these lines be at least a little bit less threatening to "the tradition of the game?" It wouldn't give an extra opportunity to hit for someone already in the lineup and wouldn't have weird baserunning implications like you discussed in today's episode.
33
2266hmhmmhmmhmmmmhm (Patreon): I had a thought about the “golden-at-bat” idea that also injects interesting strategy. How about we deregulate the bench? Let’s take a hocky or basketball approach that allows a player previously removed from the game to come back into the game after an inning is played. Maybe it can only happen during a teams turn to bat, so in theory the home team has an advantage because if they bench (for example) Julio Rodriguez after his at-bat in the 7th, ride out his replacement in the 8th (in theory taking a risk), then pinch hit him in the 9th, you’re performing the same trick but within a more strategic mechanism. This allows guys to assess injuries off the field but maintain the ability to return, defensive replacements to come out in a blowout but for the starters to return if the opposing team starts coming back, etc. In short: change the rules of the bench. Not the rules of the lineup.
34
2266Mitchell: I thought of an idea of how to fix extra innings, that isn't the zombie runner! In the NFL, they treat the start of overtime as a new game, they do a coin toss to determine possession. Maybe in MLB, if a game gets through 9 innings tied, managers get to submit a fresh lineup. If they subbed someone out, they can go back in. They can redo the batting order based on who they know is available out of their opponent's bullpen. Thoughts on this rule? Has anyone proposed something like this before?
35
2266Charlie (Patreon): I know it's been some time since it’s been in the Zeitgeist, and Manfred has all but shot it down himself, but if you could take a monkey's paw style deal and change the Zombie Runner for an extra-innings only Golden Batter (or whatever you would call it), would this be a trade you would take?
36
2266Jonathan (Patreon): The Golden AB (or PA) discussion reminded me of a tiebreaking idea I had that I posted in Discord, but I don't think I sent it to you both. It's inspired by an armageddon game in chess where players have asymmetric win conditions. In chess, the player with the white pieces must win, while the player with the black pieces can win or draw, but will also receive less time on the clock than the player with the white pieces. In baseball, in the event of a tie after nine innings, my idea is that you give the home team the option to hit or pitch. The pitching team would need to get three outs before giving up a run to win. The batting team needs to score, but would get the option to reset their lineup wherever they choose. The run expectancy for zero outs, bases empty is 0.461, so I think the batting team choosing their lineup may even it out a bit. I would prefer they play extra innings without the zombie runner and play until a team wins the normal way, but if MLB prefers to end games faster, this could be a fun way to finish the game. Do you have any thoughts on this idea?
37
2266Grant (Patreon): I think I have a solution for ACCEPTANCE of the Golden Whatever concept. Limit it to twice per season per team. But first... I'm a scoreboard operator for a major league team and I don't have media clearance so please don't use my full name if you read some of this on the show. The Golden AB/PA creates a logistical system challenge that I don't think you talked about. Some scoreboard systems that display lineups during the game don't allow operators to easily move players around in the lineup. For sure, multiple occurrences of the same player are not allowed. A LOT of programming would have to go into the effort to implement the rule, unless it's done a specific way. The systems I'm familiar with WILL allow me to switch two players so that they still appear just once each. The system asks if you're sure and will only allow it if you acknowledge that you're making a "correction" as opposed to a regular lineup change. So the way I would implement the rule from a scoreboard perspective is to allow a one time lineup switch of two players, with the caveat that neither can be on base at the time. (That just feels right but it also avoids a lot more complications with scoreboard systems that track player progress on bases to update stats in-game.) Now... I hate the rule as an everyday option too, but if teams could use the Golden Switch FAR less often, would that change the appetite for it? I think it does for me. What if teams could only make a "Golden Switch" one time in one game prior to the All-Star break, and one time in one game during the second half? That would eliminate concerns about significant impact to historical stats. I think it would spark conversations and give announcers additional reasons to speculate about potential drama. With only two to use for the season, they would always be used in high impact situations where the game is on the line. Fans on talk shows could complain about why the team didn't use their Golden Switch in a seemingly prime opportunity. And you know it would be big news every time a team uses one the first season they're available. You would talk about it just about every time it happens. I would have a lot of fun speculating on whether the manager of my team wants to pull that card in a tight situation or save it for another day, another series, or a playoff clinching situation in the second half. It would not be fun seeing a Golden Switch every day, but I think this IS TREMENDOUSLY FUN if the quantity is very limited so we get to experience it without really changing much. Shohei will get two more PAs per season; not enough to make anyone crazy about the statistical impact. Would love your thoughts.
38
2266Rob: I hate to write this email, as I am not a huge fan of the proposed Golden PA rule change. However, I believe I have an elegant solution to two of the problems you raised with the Golden PA. First, that the Golden PA would only rarely occur in the platonic ideal situation of a late game high leverage situation, and second, that the Golden PA might force us to reinvent the courtesy runner.
As I see it, there is an obvious fix. When a team uses their Golden PA, the Golden Batter and the hitter he is replacing swap places in the batting order. This would disincentivize an early usage of the PA by pushing your best hitter farther down in the order, and it would eliminate the need for a courtesy runner. This version of the rule calls to mind the once common double switch, which to my mind makes it modestly less offensive to baseball history. Presumably, this would also reduce the number of extra opportunities that top batters would get, reducing the impact on the statistical environment.
39
2266Justin (Patreon): As a recent F1 convert thanks to the Netflix doc I was excited to hear it come up on episode 2551. Ben said something like “I love hearing things that work in other sports and thinking about how they’d apply to baseball” so here’s a REALLY dumb F1 one that I’d love to hear yalls thoughts on.

Every F1 car is required to pit at least once during a race to change tires in order to have at least 2 different of the 3 (soft, medium, hard) tire types on the car as a point of making strategy compelling. What if, in order to score a run, a runner had to take a “pit stop” at some point around the bases and change into a different pair of shoes? What rule can you devise to make this the most interesting/possible (lol)? What different shoe options should there be? In general I think for the spirit of the question the runner cannot change shoes during a foul ball/time out/dead ball of any kind, as when F1 drivers pit the race continues on around them. Would LOVE to hear yalls thoughts!
40
2266Lee (Patreon): You talked about “pay” drivers, where that driver brings in sponsorship dollars because of their personality/nationality/influence or what have you.

Another fun motorsports thing is the concept of the “gentleman” driver - a very wealthy person decides they want to go racing so they just bankroll a whole team to race with. Imagine a world where David Rubenstein doesn’t buy the Orioles to make money - he buys the Orioles so he can play in MLB. Could this actually happpen? And even if it can’t, what owner, past or present, would be the most fun to see out there whiffing at gnarly curveballs because no pitcher wants to hit a billionaire with 98mph cheese? Could someone that’s sort of public-facing and well-liked like a Mark Cuban get away with it?
41
2266Nikhil (Patreon): I was in the shower, thinking about baseball arbitration, as one does. I randomly remembered that although Judge Judy is a former judge, on the show she is acting in the role of arbitrator. I think you know where I'm going with this.
What would be the impact of televising contract arbitration hearings? Would teams hold back, to avoid publicly dunking on a fan favorite and explaining why they're actually not as good as fans think they are?
It feels obvious that MLB would never agree to this unless they were allowed to have final cut privilege and edited out all the stuff that made them looks bad, but the mental image of Judge Judy dunking on a team exec trying to claw back $500k from a deserving player is fun to think about.
42
2266JJ (Patreon): Will there be a time in which we no longer refer to them as “advanced stats” but simply “stats”?
43
2266Emil: Emil: What do you see as the future of per-game metrics in the baseball conversation? Back when pitchers regularly threw entire games, statistics like ERA conveyed something meaningful in the context. In today's game, with innings pitched by starters continuing to dwindle, do you think per-game statistics will continue to be in vogue?
Over the statistical revolution, we've seen more per-game statistics introduced, such as FIP and xFIP which attempt to enhance a legacy stat like ERA, and other stats pop up such as K/9 and BB/9. But in a conversation about a pitcher's effectiveness, these numbers all lack context because they won't throw 9 innings.
In basketball commentary, there's been a growth in per-36-minutes statistics - conveying a player's performance over a normal starter's typical workload for a game. Per-game stats are still popular, but I notice these 3/4-game stats more and more.
Do you foresee a future baseball conversation where performance relative to a partial game becomes prevalent?
44
2263Ryan: Most fanbases seem to think their team is bad at the "fundamental" of hitting with RISP even when it's not accurate and this may never have been more true than with the Brewers over the last 3 seasons under co-hitting coaches Conner Dawson and Ozzie Timmons.

In that time, they have been markedly better with RISP than with the bases empty and overall all three years by such substantial margins that it's getting to the point where I'm questioning if this could actually be signal and not simply noise.

Bases Empty Rank wRC+ Bases Empty RISP rank wRC+ RISP Overall Rank wRC+ Overall
2022 13 99 6 120 11 104
2023 22 89 8 111 21 92
2024 20 89 4 122 10 104
2022-2024 19 92 4 118 18 100

I'm not sure how much of an outlier this is, but is it actually possible that they've stumbled upon a repeatable skill here and what could that even be?
45
2263Steve (Patreon): A podcast question that was sparked by thinking about the Ohtani vs Trout WBC at bat. I think I assume that two generational superstars on one team of course means they're buddies that hang out and are close friends, but really they're just coworkers so maybe they're (in a parasocially devastating scenario) cordial at best with one another. We hear a lot about guys being generally good clubhouse guys or terrible clubhouse guys, but have we ever heard of two players who are best buds on the same team?
46
2262BoHan (Patreon): On episode 2210, you talked about Ernie Clement's incredible high pitch home run. However he also had an incredibly low pitch hit for a home run this year, the only evidence of which I could find was from this tiktok video, narrowly missing out on the lowest pitch hit for a home run this year.
https://www.tiktok.com/@diamonddugout/video/7443177126695669034

I don't have access to the pitch tracking information necessary to do the number crunching myself, but I would guess that Ernie Clement managed to have the highest difference in pitch heights for home runs hit in a single season, maybe even career in the pitch tracking era?? I would love it if you could reach out to stats folks and see if that is the case.
47
2262Jabrumbo (Patreon): I was catching up on the transaction write-ups from the winter meetings and caught a line from Baumann's Jake Burger trade piece that I can't recall hearing about elsewhere. Burger has hit exactly .250 in each of the past three seasons! Knowing this, I'm going to be interested to see if he can pull off a Khris Davis-esque streak. However, do you think this achievement would be more or less satisfying given the roundness (no pun intended) of hitting exactly .250, a very common fraction, as opposed to Davis' .247 a much less common ratio?
48
2254A.J.: Listening to ep 2250 and ben and meg are discussing yusei kikuchi going to the angels. at some point the mariners are referred to as the angels' "division rivals" and i realized this was not the way i had traditionally thought of the term. my pedantic question-is a team your divisional rival just because you share a division, or does there have to be a competitive nature between the teams for it to be called that? i can see the mariners and astros being called division rivals, they have competed for al west titles recently, but the angels sharing a division but just mucking around in last-ish place doesnt strike me as making them a rival of the mariners. am i wrong?
49
2253Isaac: Your discussion on Episode 2161 about the see-through pants and risque underwear experiment reminded me of the time when it emerged that Jason Giambi used a slump-busting golden thong that he passed around to teammates. How quickly would MLB restore the pants to the previous version if Giambi were still playing? Would he still use this tactic to break out of slumps if he knew people would see it on TV?
50
2253Harlan: Harlan: Like you, I am not particularly fond of any of the potential Golden At Bat proposals. However, if MLB adopts the Golden At Bat rule, it may help right a wrong when it comes to baseball nomenclature. Or, perhaps, it may require altogether new terminology.


As you have discussed at length, many in the baseball community have unfortunately taken to referring to the automatic runner placed at second base at the start of each half of an extra inning as a "ghost runner." And, as you have discussed at length, this terminology is wrong. A true ghost runner is the imaginary runner used in an informal game when there aren't enough players.


If the Golden At Bat rule is implemented, there may be a need to have something that more closely resembles a traditional ghost runner in MLB.


If a team elects to use their Golden At Bat to substitute their number 9 hitter for the player who traditionally hits leadoff in the lineup, and that player reaches base, bringing up the leadoff batter once again (this time in his traditional lineup spot), then a placeholder runner would be necessary.


What should we call this runner? In this situation, might the term ghost runner be appropriate? Or is the absence of a physical person the whole point of a ghost runner?


After some reflection, I think I have come to the conclusion that if the Golden At Bat rule was adopted we would need a brand new term--a substitute runner, or a golden runner? What do you all think?
51
2251J. Keith: According to Baseball Reference, seven players have been nicknamed "Gibby," all of whom had the last name Gibson, except for John Gibbons, and... Earl Pruess.

Why was Earl Pruess nicknamed Gibby??
52
2251WIlliam (Patreon): Your discussion on Ep 2232 about the Prime Minister of Baseball Operations got me thinking of a hypothetical in the spirit of election season - how different would baseball be if POBOs were elected by the fans to serve 4 year terms, perhaps also choosing a manager to serve as their running mate? On EP 791 you answered a question about if managers were elected but I think if it were done at the POBO level the results would look very different.

Let's assume in this scenario teams are publicly owned and POBOs can only be dismissed by the local legislature for gross misconduct. As a political scientist, my assumption is that this would be - going to do a swear - a total shitshow. I am confident this would result in cheaper beer at the ballpark, but I am curious what other changes you would expect to the on and off field product.
53
2251Rachel: I have been rewatching some shows from my childhood and recently watched Season 1, Episode 16 of The Suite Life of Zack & Cody: Big Hair and Baseball.

Here is the clip in question (only 1 minute long): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULBd6JqqtZ8

The episode involves Mr. Moseby reaching onto the field of play to catch a ball. The batter is called out and the game ends. This struck me as strange. When I looked at the Spectator Interference rules, they say, "In every case of spectator interference with a batted or thrown ball, the ball shall be declared dead and the baserunners can be placed where the umpire determines they would have been without the interference. When a spectator clearly prevents a fielder from catching a fly ball by reaching onto the field of play, the batter shall be ruled out.”

The key word here is clearly. In my opinion, the Yankees’ fielder was not going to catch this ball, let alone clearly catch it.
What do you think? Should Mr. Moseby be the most hated man in Boston?

Best,
Rachel

P.S. While I certainly agree that Mr. Moseby interfered, at least he didn’t grab onto the glove of the player and yank the ball from him . . . (can you tell I’m a Red Sox fan?)
54
2251JJ (Patreon): Using the official opening of HOF season to port over this question from the discord: While considering the whole of Ichiro’s career, if/what would have to happen for MLB to classify NPB and KBO as Major Leagues? Some causes discussed in the discord included the expansion of TV access and greater player movement between countries
55
2251Jon: I was glad to hear a reputable source discuss the compensation that professional athletes make when they are part of postseason tournaments since this can often be the key to understanding some players' preference to not participate in such overtime work and their performance often shows it. The poster child for this way of operating is James Harden in the NBA (though I imagine there are analogous cases in all the major sports, including MLB).

The issue is easy to understand but goes against the metanarrative about "Championships" foisted upon us by the media and by ownership who stand to make a lot of money during a postseason run. So we all know why ownership wants postseason play but apparently all pro athletes are obliged to care about "Rings". Why?

Here's the problem with this: as with any other career that one does for financial compensation the postseason is merely.... let's call it "overtime" as I just did. It is beyond the scope of normal compensation except in pro sports this overtime works exactly the opposite of how overtime works for most people: Normally overtime pay is some multiple of their regular earnings. Imagine if we said to the grocery clerk, "Can you work some overtime this week on account of the Thanksgiving rush? And oh, btw, instead of making your normal wage, that wage will be cut by 75%?" Ah... No.

But surely that's an exaggeration! Pro Champs must make many many times their normal compensation to work often months past the regular season in service of their owners. Here are the numbers, more or less (and there are some variations in the reporting on this, but the differences are nothing substantial imo):

https://www.sportingnews.com/us/nba/news/nba-finals-prize-money-how-much-players-make-winning-championship/ucydpkwhiyj48occko4cdcmf

So in the NBA a Championship roster divides between $6 - $8M and splits are not necessarily even. Regardless, in the NBA there are 15 players and a mess of coaches and trainers etc. So the compensation for winning a Ring is essentially peanuts relative to the overall compensation schedule for NBA players which is pretty lucrative (and MLB thematically mirrors this): the bare minimum for an NBA player with 0 (zero) years experience is around $1.2M. The big money is reserved for the stars so let's take our example: James Harden. How much does he make for the 2024 regular season? $33.6M. So let's divide that by the 82 games he is contracted to play: I'm not great at math but that is over $400K.... per game. James isn't even gonna earn a game-check for the entire playoffs, including winning that Precious Ring (cf., Lord of the Rings). Just look at Harden's numbers in the postseason: dreadful. And he gets a lot of grief about it.

The reality is that if we want pro athletes to perform their profession at the highest level possible in the postseason when supposedly "it matters most" then, all things considered (the revenue generated; the broadcasters making bank; the fans more invested than normal.... etc...) ... then shouldn't the actual people doing the work make many multiples MORE not less for their postseason, "overtime" work? A further point is the question about what a Championship really is. In the NBA and MLB the regular seasons are long and difficult. After all these games, a Ring is won if a team manages to win a brief tournament that obviously doesn't determine which team is the best team, right? So, since "Champions" is sort of a construct designed by ownership and vast institutions with much to gain for the sake of their own compensation, if we want the actual workers to partake of this fantasy, shouldn't they get paid accordingly?

I'll be interested to hear if you all find a similar "James Harden" in the MLB.
56
2251Nate: I’ve been thinking lately about how, in F1, some drivers secure their spots on teams not purely because of skill but because they bring significant sponsorship money with them. These sponsorships can improve the team’s resources, even if the driver isn’t among the best on the grid. Some drivers are the only drivers representing an entire country or continent, so their presence on the grid opens up huge fan bases and corporate sponsors trying to reach those fan bases. To be clear, these drivers do have to be good enough to acquire a “Super Licence”—the average joe cannot touch a Formula One car; you have to know what you’re doing—but some drivers are better than others, and some super licensed drivers keep getting opportunities because of their connection to big sponsor dollars/euros/pesos/pounds/yen/yuan.

For instance, Red Bull’s Sergio Perez has really struggled for a couple of years, but many wonder if he has kept his seat because of the way fans in Mexico adore him and have no other representation on the grid, so his presence opens up interest from fans and, therefore, companies in Mexico to get behind Red Bull. Pundits openly talk about how Red Bull would never let him go before the Mexico Grand Prix, suggesting a real tie in between a driver’s popularity and revenue. This is so openly discussed in F1 that there is a term for it: pay drivers.

I'm curious what you think would happen if MLB had a similar dynamic? What do you think it would look like if players could bring personal sponsorships to their teams, or even have a designated sleeve where they could advertise corporate sponsors who are behind, not the entire team, but just that player?

Which players would thrive in this system? Could someone like Shohei Ohtani effectively pay for an entire team’s roster upgrades?

Would charismatic players like Jazz Chisholm or Mookie Betts bring in deals that overshadow their already impressive talent?

Would we talk less about who is on the MLB The Show cover and more about whose sleeve MLB The Show advertises on?

How might this change team construction? Would marginal talents with niche appeal get roster spots over more skilled players with less marketability? What replacement level players would get more run because of their popularity at home? Would Ichiro still be in MLB?

Would players choose teams based purely on sponsorship opportunities? Would free agents find themselves more or less free to go wherever they want because sponsors would go with them?

Would managers get hired based on their commercial appeal? They do get lots of screen time (I can now easily spot Dave Roberts or Aaron Boone in public). How crappy could a manager be if they were also bringing in truckloads of endorsements?

Would catchers suddenly become more valuable, since they also get so much screen time, and could theoretically help the team pay for a better pitching staff or other good players?
57
2251Daniel (Patreon): I feel like Mariners fans are overrepresented on the Baseball Internet, and I'd be curious to know if, A) You all think that's true, B) Assuming that's true, is it just a function of Dave Cameron and Jeff Sullivan being really good really early, or is there something unique about Mariners fandom that causes this? C) If it's not true, is there a different team that you think is overrepresented?
58
2248Shawn: I know you've talked on past episodes about players who were called up to MLB rosters but never appeared in a game.

With the Rays and A's both planning to play in minor league parks next season, I became curious about the possibility of a similarly sad asterisk on an MLB career. It's possible someone could get called up by the Rays or A's, only play "home" games, and then get sent back down, never to return. So, even though he was technically a Major Leaguer, he never actually got to play in an MLB park.
I went through all the cases I know of games in non-MLB stadiums (Expos in 03-04, Blue Jays in 20-21, the special games in Williamsport and Omaha, etc. I even included international games and things like the Fort Bragg and Field of Dreams games, since those weren't technically MLB parks).
As far as I can tell, it's happened three times, all with one-game MLB careers.

1. Bob Sprout was a pitcher who appeared in one home game for the Angels in 1961, their first year of existence, when they played their home games in a minor league park in L.A. named Wrigley Field.

2. Nick Allgeyer pitched one game for the Blue Jays in Buffalo in 2021, although he was still in Triple-A with the Phillies organization last year, so he may be able to play himself off the list.

3. Adam Kloffenstein made his MLB debut with the Cardinals in the Rickwood Field game last year and then was sent back down. Obviously, he has a chance to get himself off this list in the future as well.

I'm curious if any of your stat-blast experts can find any other instances of this I might have missed. 		Iknowyou'vetalkedonpastepisodesaboutplayerswhowerecalleduptoMLBrostersbutneverappearedinagame.WiththeRaysandA'sbothplanningtoplayinminorleagueparksnextseason,IbecamecuriousaboutthepossibilityofasimilarlysadasteriskonanMLBcareer.It'spossiblesomeonecouldgetcalledupbytheRaysorA's,onlyplay"home"games,andthengetsentbackdown,nevertoreturn.So,eventhoughhewastechnicallyaMajorLeaguer,heneveractuallygottoplayinanMLBpark.Iwent
59
2248Tom: When you were discussing the Diamond Sports Group resolution, you mentioned that teams that own their own networks are in much better shape than others. Could you explain why that is? Aren't those networks under the same cord-cutting pressure as the teams broadcast by Diamond? Is it just that it's the Yankees and Dodgers, so they have larger fanbases who are willing to pay? Or is there some other detail that makes owning the network more profitable, regardless of the team?

Everyone always says that those teams aren't at as much risk as others, but I've never understood why.
60
2245Tom: Can you be "just" 0 for anything? I feel like being just x-for-x has to have a non-zero number to start.
61
2245Paul (Patreon): A question about career years:
After Mark Vientos homered against the Red Sox on September 3rd, this was the Mets radio call: "Mark Vientos with his 26th home run of the year! That is another big swing by Vientos, having a CAREER YEAR!" (You can hear it here.)

I heard it, and I laughed, because, c'mon. As of the 3rd, Vientos had only appeared in around 170 total games. "Career year," to me, has always implied a kind of hindsight, perspective: When you look back at this guy's career, this was THE year. You can't identify a "career year" without having a good idea of the big picture.

But I googled "Vientos" and "career year" and was somewhat dismayed to get a lot of hits.

Look, this is the definition from the Dickson Baseball Dictionary:

"The best season of a player's career; a season as statistically good as a particular player can expect to have during his playing years. Tom Verducci (Sports Illustrated, Sept. 9, 1996) noted that a career year occurs "when a player far exceeds his well-established statistical norms"; e.g., Norm Cash in 1961, Joe Charboneau in 1980, and George Brett in 1980."
But lately there seems to be some definition creep, people using "career year" to just mean the best year of someone's career so far. There's even an MLB article from earlier this year that says "Vientos worked his way up the Minor League ladder before breaking out with a career year in the upper Minors in 2021." Seriously?

The term is meant to describe 2024 Jurickson Profar, not 2024 Jackson Merrill.

So here's my question: When is the right time to even broach the idea of a "career year" of a player? How many years in the league? What age?
This is Soto's 7th year, but the dude, as I heard once or maybe nine times on your podcast, is 25. Is this Soto's career year? Seems premature. Also, if you go from 7 to 8 WAR, I don't know if that "far exceeds" a statistical baseline, per Verducci's definition. Is it even worthwhile talking about career years with players of that stature? It feels a little bit like calling a great band a one-hit wonder.
62
2245Kyle: I'm watching Mariners/Astros and the Mariners broadcast just said they'd be home on Friday night to kick off the homestand against the As. They only have one series at home though before the regular season ends. This leads to my question - what's necessary for something to constitute a homestand? Can you have a one-game homestand? Does it necessitate multiple opponents?

I did check the wiki and the closest thing I saw was a question that looked at how teams performed in "extended home stands," which were defined to be five games or longer, so perhaps I can already deduce your answers.

https://effectivelywild.fandom.com/wiki/Episode_1723:_Absolute_Zero
63
2245Monte: Pitcher Nick Martinez of the Reds closed his year with eight innings of one run baseball, prompting an article on MLB.com speculating on whether he will opt out following the season. This caught my attention because as a Padre fan who wishes him well, I know after returning to MLB following four years in Japan as a largely unheralded swingman, he has now signed three multi-year contracts and it appears he will opt out of all three following the first year.

2022: Four years with $25M guaranteed
2023: Three years with $26M guaranteed
2024: Two years with $26M guaranteed

Aside from enjoying an older seemingly good dude revive his career and continually bet on himself and win, is there a precedent for a player opting out of a contract in three consecutive years?

Less important question, given his seeming fondness for about $25M guaranteed over a decreasing number of years, is a team obligated to just give him a one-year $25M deal so he can complete his cycle?
64
2245Jake: Question is, when can an IFA sign an extension? So the bonus pool is limited but what’s to stop a team from telling Sasaki that if he chooses their team they’ll sign a 10 year $200M contract?
65
2245Peter: With the sale of the Ohtani 50/50 ball at $4.3 million plus continued lawsuits over the proper ownership of the ball, it strikes me that perhaps we should consider stopping the "abandonment" principle entirely and just say the team/MLB still own the ball even if it ends up in the stands.

The violent scrambles for home run balls are often dangerous and create bad incentives for fans and messy litigation. Plus it doesn't really make sense from an economic standpoint. The value of the ball was generated by the player and the team, not the jabroni who caught it. Why should they get the windfall of the Ohtani's 50/50 season?

If I mistakenly left a $4.3 million on the train and someone picked it up, it wouldn't become theirs magically. Why say that this applies to big home run balls too?

I understand that giving more money to MLB is hardly equitable. Plus MLB probably doesn't want all the random fly balls and even homers. The possibility of catching a homer is part of the fun of attending.

So let's say we have a new rule: MLB balls caught by fans are like a library loan. MLB owns the ball and transfers between people afterwards are just transfers of the license to hold it, not permanent ownership. This means MLB can also reclaim any ball as its own. This ends the gamesmanship of negotiating with the team etc for notable balls too. And MLB probably just lets all the foul balls and even non notable homers go (or do they gobble them up and create squeeze more revenue out of their product?).

What do you think? Good idea? Or worse than the current situation?
66
2245Andy: I was reading the recent post on FanGraphs for a Rockies job and was struck by their mission statement: "The mission of the Colorado Rockies Baseball Club is to embody the principles and practices of a championship organization in both the sport and business of baseball." I looked at some other team job postings and didn't see any other mission statements. I was struck that
1) They just want to "embody" certain attributes of a championship team, rather than actually win a championship, and
2) They give the "business of baseball" equal weight to the sports aspect, which seems odd to put in a mission statement even if it's true.

Do you think this reveals anything about the Rockies organization in particular, or do you think this is probably representative of what most clubs are aiming for?
67
2245Alan: Love the podcast and wonder if you can help me understand this quirk with Prospect Promotion Incentives. I was thinking about this after learning that Bobby Witt Jr’s top three MVP placement will net the Royals an extra draft pick.

My understanding is that rookies who sign contract extensions before their major league debut (like Colt Keith and Jackson Chourio) are not eligible for PPI. Why is this?

In spirit, the PPI system is in place to stop teams from nickel and diming young players. A contract extension is more player friendly than a young star playing for pre-arb money. What gives?

In Witt’s case, the Royals extended him after his debut, so they can keep reaping the sweet PPIs post extension. But the Tigers and Brewers are excluded from PPI possibilities because they jumped the gun by a few months. Is this just a glitch or am I missing something here?
68
2245Evan (Patreon): I was wondering if/why there isn't as much talk about playoff revenue as I would expect. When the Warriors were on their run, there was a ton of talk about how they were making millions on millions in playoff revenue and how that would translate to being able to go way over the luxury tax. I feel like that's just not as much the case in MLB. Is that just because gate revenue for playoffs is a smaller portion of overall gate revenue? (max of 14 home games for a WC team / 81 = 17% vs. 16 home games max / 41 = 39% for NBA). How much of a revenue bump IS making the playoffs?
69
2234Kevin D.: Emmanuel Clase allowed 5 ER this regular season in 74.1 IP but allowed 8 ER in the playoffs. Is that the most regular season innings pitched by a player who allowed more runs in the postseason?
70
2233Ari (Patreon): How can you not be pedantic about baseball: Bat flips! The phrase "bat flips" has become far too over-arching these days. A bat flip should be just that: a bat tossed end-over-end, preferably with a follow through. Bat tosses, bat spikes, bat drops, are all cool and should be celebrated, but they are not bat flips!

In neither of these does the bat flip!
https://twitter.com/cjzero/status/1847085842839605367
71
2233Shane: I was watching a Mariners game recently with my dad, and he noticed the Yankees' Alex Verdugo wearing number 24 when playing against Seattle at T-Mobile Park.

My dad said something like: "He shouldn't be allowed to wear that number in this ballpark, it's retired!"

That got me thinking, what kind of chaos would it cause teams if they couldn't wear the retired numbers of opposing teams anytime they played in that team's ballpark? So basically, what if numbers were retired for any player who entered that ballpark, rather than just for that team?

What kind of unforeseen chaos would this cause for players, teams, and clubhouse managers, if teams that played the Yankees at Yankee Stadium weren't allowed to wear any of the numbers in Monument Park, or teams that played in Seattle couldn't wear 11 or 24?

I wonder how teams would approach these problems. Just lots of spare uniforms for everyone and basically wearing a different jersey number for every series? I can think of a few problems it would bring up, but I'm curious for your take on how this would change baseball, either for the worse or better.
72
2232Michael (Patreon): I wanted to follow up on the mid-inning pitching change thing. I was at a couple of regular season games this year where pitching changes got off-cycle; i.e., starting pitcher was pulled with (say) two outs in the fifth; they brought in a new pitcher who pitched to three batters, third out of the fifth, first two of the sixth, and then because these relievers can apparently only pitch to three batters in a game, they brought in a new pitcher for the final out of the sixth. Rinse and repeat in the seventh, eighth. It was unpleasant then, it was really unpleasant in this Dodgers-Padres game.

I was thinking about some kind of tweak to the minimum batter rule; something like if you start the inning you have to pitch to three batters in that inning, regardless of how many batters you have previously faced. Maybe there’s a tweak to that where a starter can be pulled after one batter in the fifth or something like that.

Any thoughts? I think in this age of the three-batter minimum we have had so few mid-inning pitching changes that when they come fast and furious it is almost worse now than when the one batter minimum rule was in place.
73
2232Thomas: I was listening to the recent episode where you discussed Manny Machado and his intent when deflecting a ball. You had mentioned that it was an unreviewable play. This got me thinking, why are some plays not reviewable? Why wouldn’t a manager be able to request a review on any single event that happens in a game? I assume it’s not a matter of slowing the game down, because managers have a finite number of challenges and unless you increase the number of challenges theoretically no more time will be lost. I suppose that some events, if overturned, would have unknowable outcomes since play may have been stopped or otherwise disrupted. But it seems like we frequently hear the refrain ‘That’s not a reviewable call’ in situations where a review may have been illuminating.
74
2232Ben (Patreon): The top baseball management official in many baseball teams is called the President of Baseball Operations. Should Mark Shapiro's title really be something like Prime Minister of Baseball Operations for the Blue Jays or King of Baseball Operations for the Blue Jays?
75
2232David (Patreon): I would like to argue that one cannot "fly out sharply" as MLB's GameDay says Addison Barger did in the bottom of the 8th on Saturday. You can fly out to a deep part of the park, or line out sharply, but you cannot fly out sharply.
76
2232Brian (Towson, Maryland): Mlb posted this clip of Riley Greene robbing a home run and captioned it as "taking a souvenir away":
https://www.facebook.com/share/r/UYEC266XatEt1xff/?mibextid=YlDasU
If it was going out, it was definitely not going to reach a fan unless they're hiding just beyond the fence. Has "taking a souvenir away" become semantically inert and now can refer to any home run robbery? At least in announcer language?
77
2232Jose (Patreon): Pedantic question: Can you square up a ball yet also pull it foul? Seems to me those two things should be mutually exclusive?
78
2232Wilson (Patreon): Hello I have a question that can't possibly have an accurate answer: I was thinking about Shohei Ohtani recently (as one does) and I was struck by the question of what number of people who are currently aware of Shohei Ohtani are simultaneously unaware that he also pitches? I know that obviously his several two-way seasons were hugely covered, but Baseball still occupies a somewhat second-class status in the American sports scene and he has yet to pitch in the playoffs or while on a relevant team. Are there people who are just now diving into the Ohtani experience and think that by two-way we all just mean the power-speed combo? Or do they assume that when people talk about his previous two-way seasons it means he has been an elite center fielder in those seasons? I'm always interested in figuring out what is and is not "common knowledge," and you would think that Ohtani is supernova bright in the sports world but on the other hand I was once at a bar trivia in 2021 at which there was a question asked about the "DH and Outfielder" who has just won MVP for the Angels, so who knows.
79
2230Dan (Patreon): I'm sure this is somewhere, but I'm struggling to find it: what is the average number of games in a DS? In an LCS? World Series?
80
2230E May (Patreon): I’m sure this has been statcast’ed but can’t find it - curious what the list of best/worst playoff hitters compared to their regular season performance? I know playoffs is mostly small sample size but Judge’s not stellar to-date performance in playoffs had me curious.
81
2230Braxton: I was looking at Beau Brieske's baseball reference page when I noticed that he has 12 games started and 12 games finished in 2024. This is, of course, due to the Tiger's "pitching chaos" approach to the second half of the season (none of those 12 "starts" was a start in the traditional sense--the longest went only 3 innings), but it did get me wondering, is this a record number of games started and finished with an equal amount of each? Initially I thought the record holder could be some dead ball era pitcher with a complete game in every start, but complete games aren't counted as games finished. With this in mind, the only real circumstances I could think of that would lead to this situation is a pitcher changing roles mid season or, in more recent years, situations like the 2024 Tigers where a team uses lots of openers. Given this, Brieske's 12 seems like a rather high mark. Curious to hear if you have any thoughts on this.
82
2226Jesse: I am a Tigers fan, and needless to say the last month and has been pretty exhilarating. I'm excited to see how far into this series we get, but I have a question for you about the long term effects of this end of season boon. Is there any way to calculate how making the post season after a dry spell could help or hurt our post season chances in the future? Are teams who make the playoffs more likely to make them again in the future? Maybe there is a morale boost at play, or maybe this zoomed out look could account for the cumulative effects of a number of smaller advantages?
83
2223Brian: Rowdy Tellez (Brewers legend) was DFA'd 4 ABs short of a contractual bonus. As a Brewers fan (and someone who bears a striking resemblance to Rowdy according to my wife) this infuriates me. This sends a terrible message to any perspective free agents. Yeah, they're division rivals, but Skenes and company deserve better. PNC deserves better. Pittsburgh deserves better. I guess I just wanted to rant, but this does raise a question: how can Nutting be stopped? We really need to stop Nutting. Say no to Nutting!
84
2222Mark: Matt Chapman had an interesting outing Monday against the D-Backs. After collecting an inside the park homerun in the 3rd, he narrowly missed a second inside-the-parker in the 7th after driving one to center field, having the ball ricochet back towards the infield, but just not quite far enough in order to make it all the way home.

What I found most intriguing however were the distances of each respective hit. The inside the park homerun travelled 415 feet, with the triple travelling 412 feet.

Has a player in the Statcast era ever had 2 hits in a game, with neither of the hits leaving the yard, totalling more than Chapman's 827 combined feet?
85
2221Michael (Patreon): I'd love it if you all could do a "state of defensive metrics" podcast after the season is over. What are the pros and cons of each? What can/should the baseball community do to improve them? Is Statcast the gold standard now for defensive metrics?
86
2218Josh: Know you requested and got a letter about Mike Trout's genomics, but before we send in spies to take his DNA, how about an old fashioned inquisition with either his trainer and/or the Angels training staff? Are you aware of any reporting done over the last five years (i.e. his injury history timeline) that inquiries about the changes to his exercises and fitness that have or have not happened?

TL;DR an aging big guy with lower body injuries should very likely drop some wait. I'm saying Mike Trout needs to stop training like a linebacker. No one aged better than Brady, and though he and his trainer did some creepy branding stuff later on, building long, lean muscles and specifically trying to move the body AWAY from mass is what kept him in the league so long.

Has Mike Trout NOT gotten this message from his people? Do the Angels just defer to his personal trainer? Has anyone asked him to show up to camp at 210 instead of 235 or 240?

Trout and I have the same frame, though I have 10 years on him. Sure enough, after age 27, being 230 and swoll was NOT in my knees best interests.

Can someone please get Mike a pilates reformer?!
87
2217Sean (Patreon): In Paul Skenes's debut on May 11 against the Cubs, the Cubs had 10 hits and 10 walks and lost. I was impressed with the symmetry of those numbers, and that they managed to lose. They scored 9 runs (so close to 10-10-10!), and 6 of those were charged to non-Skenes pitchers. On August 28, Skenes started against the Cubs and the Pirates lost 14-10. 11 of those 14 runs were charged to non-Skenes pitchers. In another start against the Cubs on May 17, all three Cubs runs were charged to non-Skenes pitchers. (There was also a Skenes start on September 3 where the Cubs scored 0 runs.)

I have a few questions which may be Stat Blastable. What is the highest matching number of walks and hits for a team in a single game? What is the record for a game that team lost? What about matching numbers of walks, hits, and runs for both any game or a game the team lost?

Skenes has started 4 games against the Cubs this year. In those games, the Cubs have scored 20 runs charged to non-Skenes pitchers. In a given season, what is the highest number of runs a team has scored in games started by a single opposing pitcher that were charged to other pitchers?
88
2217Melanie: As i type this i’m watching my twins play the royals, who now have tommy pham on their roster. having been on vacation in late august, i must have missed this acquisition and thus was a little confused since it was only about two weeks ago that the twins faced him with the cardinals. he was also a member of the white sox for all of their matchups earlier this season. is this anything? on one hand, i feel like anything happening only three times in a baseball season isn’t likely to be notable, but then again i can’t recall noticing one player being in a lineup for that many different teams and in such an order that he keeps running into the same opponent with every single one.
89
2217Justice (Patreon): In tonight's Brewers Giants Game Camilo Doval walked
Willy Adames and the advanced him to 2nd 3rd and home all on separate wild pitches. I was wondering how often a run is scored this way. I can't remember ever seeing it happen. Adames was also the only base runner Doval allowed so I this can be filed under a true case of Effectively Wild.
90
2217Jason (Patreon): The recent podcasts on how terrible owners are got me thinking about wild hypotheticals around ownership, and I was curious to hear you bat this an idea around for a while. The idea is this: a player owned team. This could take a lot of forms, but to give you a sense of what I'm thinking, here's on possibility: the Green Bay Packers but for players. Not Jeter leading an ownership group, but a group where players and former players were the only ones who had an ownership stake.

Here’s one (seriously flawed) concept of how this could go. Perhaps any player that plays more than X number of years receives a share of the team, or maybe a share of the team upon retirement. So the ownership group would be players that the local public had a relationship with. This could also be an incentive that this team could use to bring a player into the organization. For example, if you had to play 7 years to be on the team to get an ownership share, perhaps that team could offer a free agent a lower annual value on a 7 year contract in order to entice them. Once a player has this share, perhaps it could be sold, but only to players who had a certain number of years in the league. Perhaps if it was 7 years on the team, maybe they could only sell it to other players who had served 10 years in MLB total. However, players would all own an equal share of the team, ie, one player can’t buy out the others to get a controlling share. The only market to sell shares is other former major leaguers who don’t currently own a share. This group would surely have some kind of chair person, and hire a GM etc just like any other team, but the ultimate ownership would be in the hands of the players.

I know there are issues with this. The team might have an incentive to cut or trade players so they don’t get their ownership share. Or what if a player has their ownership share in the bag, and then go to play for another team. Do they then have very mixed incentives to play against the team they either own or will own?

I don’t know if this is a good idea, and I certainly realize that it would never be allowed, but I’d be curious to hear you all take this as a jumping off points for one of your “if baseball was different, how different would it be” conversations.
91
2217Ben: Ever since the lockout, my girlfriend has had to put up with my incessant griping about the lack of baseball news, as well as about the owners and their dastardly ways. She's not a baseball fan by any means, but she's also not a fan of capital exploiting labor, and raised an interesting idea: why do baseball teams need individual owners at all? Many of them seem content to pad their own pockets at the expense of fielding a competitive team; a few of them don't even seem to like baseball very much.

She proposed the idea of public ownership, in which any fan that buys a share of the team (no matter how small) could vote for a group of people (or just go the pure democratic route and have ballot referendums) to make decisions regarding signings, trades, roster moves, etc. The purpose of buying a share would not be to make a profit by selling shares later, but to have an actual influence on the operation of your favorite team. As I understand it, the Green Bay Packers operate on a similar model, and are consistently one of the most successful football teams.

I'm sure there are legal reasons why owners can't simply be stripped of their teams, and even public ownership would privilege the opinions of wealthier fans, but this model seems better than having one person call the shots. Perhaps the money that owners are currently pocketing could then be redistributed to players, concessions workers, etc. Do you think it's possible that this would ever be implemented in MLB?
92
2217Brian: What problems would we solve and/or create if all owners were given the boot, and our baseball teams were held in common a la the Packers?
93
2216Daniel (Patreon): I've been thinking about the Ben Joyce Velocity+/(K/9+) conversation and have been bothered by how this stat was dominated by K/9+ with fastball velocity less important. I think I figured out the problem: K/9 is much more variable than fast ball velocity (not uncommon to have a 1/2 league average K/9 (~4) but unheard of to have a 1/2 league average fastball velocity (45mph)). So: perhaps you could find the Z-score for both if there's a way to calculate standard deviations. Then you could find the difference between the two to find your outliers. For Z_velo - Z_K/9, high (positive) results reveal the hard throwing non-bat-missers (Ben Joyce) while very negative results are the opposite.
94
2216Matt: Someone in the facebook group posted a question wondering if players ever left a team meeting a said to themselves "this could have been an email" This is, of course, on of those facebook memes that office workers find funny.

It got me wondering, in what ways do baseball players do non-baseball stuff related to their jobs. When they get called up, do they go to HR and get an email address and login access. "Welcome Aaron, here is your email, a.judge@yankees.com, here is your work laptop, your key fob, and your id card, please sign here."

I truly have no idea if anything like this happens. It's 2024 after all. Do they have work emails? Do they just show up and do baseball stuff and they are completely out of the corporate loop? Are they somewhere in between?

Inquiring minds want to know.
95
2216Tobias (Patreon): Just saw that Cade Povich recently set season highs against the White Sox which got me thinking about some questions which might make for interesting stat blast fodder. How many players (and what percentage of the league) have had their best game of the season against the White Sox? How many players (and what percentage of the league) have had the best game of their career against the 2024 White Sox? For all questions, how do those numbers stack up historically?
96
2215Melanie: A while ago i watched the old steve martin movie “my blue heaven,” which i might want to classify as a baseball movie? a decent part of the plot involves martin’s character trying to ingratiate himself to his love interest’s two sons, who are baseball fans/little leaguers. they go to a padres game and some little league games, at one of which martin throws the ceremonial first pitch…from home plate?? my best guess is they did this because of lighting or cinematography reasons, but is there actually precedent for throwing the pitch the wrong way? that detail totally took me out of the moment and i’ve been wanting to complain to someone about this for literal months since i watched the film. please tell me your hypothetical baseball movie consulting firm would never have allowed this scene to be composed this way!
97
2215Sam S. (Patreon): I'm back with more baseball-soccer crossover content (I really appreciated getting a response to my last message!), this time with a question.

News broke earlier this week that the US Women's National Team and Washington Spirit's Croix Bethune, the like NWSL rookie of the year, had a meniscus injury that required surgery. As a Spirit fan, this was disappointing, if not exactly surprising, given the "epidemic" of knee injuries in women's soccer: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/19/sports/soccer/womens-world-cup-soccer-torn-acl.html. However, further reporting found that Bethune tore her ACL throwing out the first pitch at a Nats game: https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2024/09/04/croix-bethune-nationals-first-pitch-knee-injury/. Apparently, pitchers can go sproing even when those pitches are ceremonial and the pitcher is a soccer player.

My question is this: what other injuries have happened to ceremonial first-pitch throwers? I found a news story about the late Don Baylor, then a coach for the Angels, breaking his leg while catching a first pitch from Vlad Guerrero. Has anything like this ever happened before to an athlete from another sport? Should such athletes be avoiding ceremonial first pitches?
98
2215Jon: A thought in response to your HBP discussion from episode 2214. For many years I’ve felt there is a very simple & fair solution to this issue:

A pitcher shall be responsible for the health of all hitters they face, and as such should be suspended for the full duration of a hitter’s IL stint in the event of an injury resulting from a HBP (regardless of intent). This would, in effect:
remove judgement from the equation in determining punishment for the pitcher
change the pitcher’s calculus for whether pitching inside is worth the risk (as you noted, this seems likely to shift some advantage back to the hitter, which one could argue is a desirable side effect)
balance the consequential burden between teams, and perhaps even reduce the perceived need to perpetuate eye-for-an-eye retaliatory cycles (which has always been a result of the aforementioned fundamental risk/consequence imbalance; the unwritten rules evolved specifically as the only way for teams to “protect their players” given the massive disparity in consequence: potentially months of IL time for an injured hitter vs. a few games/weeks of suspension for pitchers)

For this policy to work as intended, a team-independent doctor would need to evaluate the initial injury & also monitor the recovery, to prevent the hitter’s team from falsely diagnosing the injury or manipulating IL timing in order to lengthen a pitcher’s suspension.

I’m not convinced that this would entirely “take away the inside of the plate” from pitchers, they would just have to factor injury risk into the equation when deciding to pitch inside, and perhaps favor their offspeed repertoire on that side of the plate. True, there would still be the occasional slip of a ball & unintended injury, which could potentially take an innocent pitcher out for months at a time; but why is that any more unfair than an innocent batter losing half their season (or more) to one careless pitch?
99
2214Andy: On Episode 2201, you discussed the strength of Aroldis Chapman's arm -- not just his ability to throw 105, but the durability to never need elbow surgery. Ben said, "He has to donate his UCL to science." But why stop there? Doesn't this UCL have monetary value?

What if the last team to employ him could negotiate tendon rights? The Pirates could've offered a one-year deal that included postseason surgery to claim the UCL. The front office would then have the option to preemptively put the tendon in Jared Jones, keep it on ice, or maybe find a trade partner (Nutting it away for cash considerations).

(I have attempted no research to learn if this is medically ridiculous or if Team ElAttrache is on the verge.)

But hypothetically, how much would this be worth to a team? Assume the strength is verifiable. Only one pitcher can have it at a time, but that person is immune from elbow injuries.
100
2214Tanner (Patreon): I'm curious if you believe in the concept of a natural position. In Davy Andrews coverage of Oneil Cruz's move off of SS, he excerpted a Pirates beat reporter criticizing the move away from"his natural position." Given the circumstances, that seemed overly confident about Cruz's relationship to the position, but that phrase has always seemed oddly deterministic to me. What say you two?