Effectively Wild: A FanGraphs Baseball Podcast - Effectively Wild Episode 1205: Baseball on the Brain

Episode Date: April 19, 2018

Ben Lindbergh and Jeff Sullivan banter about Shohei Ohtani’s blister, the Braves signing Jose Bautista as a third baseman, and Oakland’s well-attended free-admission game, then talk to two authors of new books about what happens in baseball players’ brains: Zach Schonbrun, author of The Performance Cortex: How Neuroscience is Redefining Athletic Genius (11:58), and former […]

Body and beats, I stain my sheets, I don't even know why My girlfriend, she's at the end, she is starting to cry Let me go on, like I'm blistering in the sun Let me go on, big hands, I know you're the one Hello and welcome to episode 1205 of Effectively Wild, a baseball podcast from Fangraphs presented by our Patreon supporters. I am Ben Lindberg of The Ringer, joined by Jeff Sullivan of Fangraphs. Hello. Hi, Ben. You've already said hello. I guess we could have skipped that part.

So we have a couple of guests to talk to today. This is going to be a fun one, I think. So we have a couple of guests to talk to today. This is going to be a fun one, I think. In fact, we've already had these conversations, so I can say with some confidence that it was and is and will be a fun one. So I get a lot of baseball books sent to me. There are a lot of baseball books written every year, and many of them are mailed to me, and I try to get to as many of them as I can and try to have people on. It's tough to get to everyone, but I got a couple this

year, one called The Performance Cortex, How Neuroscience is Redefining Athletic Genius. That is out this week from Zach Schoenbrunn. And then I also got 90% Mental, an all-star player turned mental skills coach reveals the hidden game of baseball. That's by the former pitcher Bob Tewksbury, as well as Scott Miller. So I figured these would be fun to pair together as sort of an episode about the brain and the mental side of baseball, whether it is how you think on the mound or how you actually literally think neurons-wise. So we'll be talking to both of these guys today. I think it makes a good pairing about some things that we don't typically talk about. Agreed.

So before we get to them, just a couple of quick topics. We got an email earlier this week, or I got an email notifying me of a new iTunes review for this podcast and was left by someone named Booyah with four A's at the end of ya. And it said, Otani, just renamed the podcast effectively Otani already. Good Lord. Which point taken. We talk about Otani a just renamed the podcast Effectively Otani already. Good lord. Which, point taken. We talk about Otani a lot.

I don't know whether we can name it Effectively Otani right now because Otani, not so effective in his most recent outing. That was a bit of a letdown because we'd waited four days or so to see Otani. There was the postponement on Sunday, of course. And things did not go well for him on Tuesday night. four days or so to see Otani. There was the postponement on Sunday, of course, and things did not go well for him on Tuesday night. He couldn't command much of anything, particularly his secondary stuff. The Red Sox hitters are patient, and they took a lot of those pitches outside the strike zone, and Otani only lasted a couple innings, gave up a few runs, and as we

learned after the game, he was dealing with a blister on his right middle finger, which is somewhat disconcerting, but helps explain why he looked the way he did. I understand a healthy skepticism when it comes to information provided by powerful organizations, but I'll see whenever David Price comes out of a game with some sort of injury note, then people on Twitter will just say, oh, yeah, yeah right he's just an excuse because he got blasted and i saw a lot of the same stuff yesterday with regard to otani being pulled as soon as word came out that it was a blister people just like yeah blister right he was getting lit up first of all he wasn't getting lit up but anyway now you shouldn't judge people based on twitter because most of those people aren't even real but i think it's it's

pretty clear when you look at what otani did again it was only two winnings but his fastball was fine he threw 37 of them they were very fast up to 100.7 miles per hour two-thirds of his fastballs were strikes but you could really i don't think that you can always tell when a blister is manifesting in performance but you can just look at it like this otani threw 13 splitters two of them were strikes both of those got swings his splitter was all over the place his slider was bad i haven't pitched for a while and i never pitched with the blister so i don't know exactly how it works but i can imagine that it becomes difficult when you are trying to manipulate the seams fastball is pretty basic splitter slider not so basic that seems like a worthwhile explanation to me effectively otani still bullish on otani's future in the majors

yeah so that game became the Mookie Betts show instead of the Shohei Otani show, and that's a good show too. I like Mookie, who hit three home runs. But you just hope that this doesn't turn into a chronic issue. Of course, we have seen that with effectively wild folk hero Rich Hill. He has dealt with blister issues that lingered. Of course, Aaron Sanchez and other pitchers.

And so I hope that that doesn't happen and of course because Otani has this unique playing schedule you also hope that it doesn't impact his hitting you could imagine that if you have a blister that has already developed on your finger then anything that forces you to put pressure on it more is bad is potentially harmful it sounds so far the angels are saying at least that this will not affect his hitting but you just really hope that this season which has been so much fun for all of us doesn't get derailed by something as you know mundane but hard to eradicate as a blister yeah the good news is he's still going to be in the lineup so you know we still get half of

otani but yep it would be great to not see more of this maybe him getting more time off between starts will help avoid this becoming a problem but you never know blisters can derail entire seasons do you have anything else to say on otani uh more time off between starts it's already too long it's excruciating but i understand so uh we've had some breaking news minor breaking news but kind of major breaking news while we have been recording this i will just read the tweet from at Braves. That's the Atlanta Braves. They're verified. The Atlanta hashtag Braves today agreed to terms with free agent to infielder Jose Bautista on a one-year minor league contract for the 2018 season.

And he has reported to Atlanta's extended spring training complex in Lake Buena Vista, Florida. He will play third base. Jose Bautista. Yeah. Third baseman, 37 years old. Yeah. How about that? I think we had both sort of given up on seeing Jose Batista again.

I mean, I have enjoyed his career. I hope it can be prolonged, but I wasn't hopeful. Of course, he has to make it back to the big leagues, and who knows how long it will last. And yeah, going back to third base seems ambitious, but he wasn't much of an outfielder in his latter years there either. So I suppose, I don't know, maybe if he's not covering a whole lot of ground, maybe it's less pronounced if you're in the infield than it would be in the outfield. I don't know. But it is much too soon to say I guess when the Braves have resorted to moving Freddie Freeman to third base Signing Jose Bautista to play third base is not all that far-fetched And I can say that for Bautista's career as an outfielder By defensive runs saved and by UZR His sort of range runs have been around negative 60 to negative 70

But his arm runs have been about plus 33 to plus 42 So Baut batista of course has always had a very good arm in the outfield he's one of those guys who tries to get the outfield assists at first base the nine three put outs those are always a lot of fun he's only got a few of those but in any case braves are either looking at this thinking well let's try something because there's nowhere in the outfield for him to play we've got this guy acuna coming up and right you look at them in third base, what? It's supposed to be Johan Camargo.

It's currently Ryan Flaherty. Whatever. Yeah, Flaherty has a 901 OPS right now. So he's probably not thrilled. But yeah, Braves third baseman have actually hit pretty well so far. But you wouldn't really expect that to continue. So this is kind of a forecasting a a worse offensive performance from that position probably on the part of the braves yeah i don't know how much

there is to read into in terms of oh the braves are being cutting edge giving a shot to this guy but i don't know i think batista has a little life left i'm interested to see if he can play third base he played 38 innings of third base last season for the blue jays didn't have a bad defensive performance but 38 innings it doesn't matter he's uh he's played out there only those 38 innings in the last five years that's the extent of his experience but whatever no harm to the braves they'll find out i'm sure he'll find his way to the major league roster and he'll be a better depth piece maybe than ryan flaherty moving forward i honestly don't know it's baseball but at least jose batista's playing days aren't over

yep all right so we'll keep this intro banter short. Except I'm sorry to talk over you, but I did forget about something. So one last quick thing. I will read the thousandth place for Oakland Athletics home attendance this year. 28,000 home opener, then 28,000, then 17,000, then 15, then seven, then nine, then eight, then 10, then seven, then 46, then 8, then 10, then 7, then 46,000 people showed up on Tuesday night to see the A's demolish the visiting White Sox 10-2, and 46,028 people showed up or acquired tickets

because tickets were free. Oakland had a free game, and people showed up, and they saw Trevor Cahill deal against a bad team, and Miguel Gonzalez took the loss but I didn't watch the game I was out of the house and also Otani was playing but this was still it's a cool idea now there's not a whole lot of teams that would be in position to do this on account of Oakland never sells any tickets but still it's just fun to see the stadium full up I've always liked the diminutive Oakland audience that they're able to draw of the 7,000 people who show

up regularly 6,500 of them are very enthusiastic so it's just nice to be able to see people show up it's sort of a middle finger to Baltimore's kids get in free to the upper deck kind of promotion it's like cool see you that one and we'll raise you everyone for free everywhere so I would be interested to know how the economics of this work out because there is money being made all those people are going in and spending money at concessions and maybe at the team shop. And I wonder if they actually made more money last night than they would with a regular home game. It would be nice to know, but we'll probably never find out. I'm curious about that, too.

Obviously, it's not something that a team that has a ton of demand for tickets would feel moved to do. So there is a reason why it's the A's and the Orioles exploring ideas like this. But I mean, sure, it's better for the team to have a full ballpark. It's better for people to go to the game than not go to the game. I guess the concern is that you, I don't know, I mean, obviously in these cases, you're not really costing yourself many sales. You're costing yourself whatever it is, 6,000, 7,000 sales, I suppose, in order to hopefully entice some of these people to buy tickets in the future and also look a little less sad and depressing on TV and make some concession sales. So I would also

be curious to see if this works out. I guess if the situation is as dire as it has been for the A's this year, you don't have a whole lot to lose. But yeah, we may never know the exact specifics of the economics here. I don't know how many of those 46,000-odd fans were still around in the top of the eighth when the A's were up 10-0. But here is Ryan Dull's inning pitched against the White Sox. Strikeout, home run, strikeout, strikeout, strikeout. That's a fun one. That's a four-strikeout inning with the Yohan Mankata home run. Omar Narvaez reached first base on, strikeout, strikeout, strikeout That's a fun one That's a four strikeout inning with the

Johan Moncada home run. Omar Narvaez Reached first base on a strikeout wild pitch Always a good time Alright, so we will take a quick break now And we'll be back with Zach Schoenbrunn To talk about neuroscience And how teams are measuring what is going on In players' heads

And the upsides and downsides of that Whether it's going to be bigger in player evaluation or player development. It is a fascinating topic. And then we'll take another quick break and we'll be back with Bob Tewksbury to talk about his work with mental skills and also his pitching to Barry Bonds and Mark McGuire in 1997, 1998, always obligatory that we have to ask about Bonds. So we will be back in just a moment I never want to interview a pitcher who didn't face Barry Bonds laughter

take your brain time to go you don't have long to know remember me remember me cause I'm the one that you seek Remember me

Alright, so we are joined now by Zach Schoenbrunn. He has written for many sites that you all read regularly, but he has also written a book which is out this week. It's called The Performance Cortex, How Neuroscience is Redefining Athletic Genius. Hey, Zach, how are you? Hey, Ben. Doing great. How are you? We are doing well. So this is not explicitly a baseball book. It is athletic genius, not athletic baseball genius, but there is a baseball on the cover. The first chapter is about baseball.

Baseball runs throughout the book. Is there a reason why you decided to focus on baseball? Is neuroscience work just best suited to baseball? Has it been embraced the fastest by baseball? Yeah, yeah. Well, there's a couple answers to that question. I mean, the most obvious answer is that I found, I got started down this whole path, fell down the rabbit hole, so to speak, by finding an article in an alumni magazine about two neuroscientists that were

working with Major League Baseball teams and doing consulting work. This was about in 2014. And so I started writing about them and their company called DeServo. And so, you know, that obviously continued throughout the next three years, just following them and their progress and what they're doing with Major League baseball teams. And they do work with other sports as well, but their interests began with baseball and that's where they've made the most headway. And I think, you know, kind of the second answer to your question and one of the reasons why they've made headway is that, you know, baseball, especially the hitting side of baseball is the cleanest for data as obviously, you know, you guys know with your analytics work, you know, it's why Moneyball was able to take off right in baseball.

You have clean interactions and, you know, you can easily available data rather than a more of a dynamic sport like basketball or football or hockey or something like that. And so especially with hitting, when you're talking about a single interaction, you know, hitter versus pitcher, you know, one pitch at a time. And you can, you can use neuroscience to break down, you know, how a hitter is making a decision to swing or not swing at this single

pitch. And I think, you know, that opportunity there made baseball much easier for these neuroscientists to, to break into sports. And, you know,

I think it probably down the road probably will make it easier for others neuroscientists to break into sports. And, you know, I think it probably, down the road, probably will make it easier for others, you know, interested in this as well. I can't think of how many book topics I've discarded when I've just thrown my alumni magazine straight into the garbage. So that's too bad for me. But I think, what was it? What's the factoid that 28 of 30 Major League league baseball teams have reached out and expressed interest in DeServo? I think that's what it was. But there's obviously what baseball, like any professional sport, is a copycat league. But you have every single team that's sort of chasing the same new advantages, cutting edge analysis, whatever.

That's just a league that's going after everything that they can get. But would you say that there's just been a very strong enthusiasm in pursuit of? Would you say that there's just been a very strong enthusiasm in pursuit of, I know there was an article some years ago that was talking about the Red Sox neuro scouting that they were doing and Mookie Betts was heavily featured in there. We'll probably talk about that a little later. But to what extent are teams interested in pursuing this because they believe that this is very important? Or is it just the potential that this is going to be very important and allowing teams to better sift out, I guess, who's going to be good and who is going to be sort of fodder in the minor leagues. Right, right. I think I would characterize it as a healthy curiosity from teams. And I followed DeServo for about three years now. So I have seen, you know, kind of their ups and downs along the way. And initially, you know, when I first started getting, you know, when I first started following them, there was a lot of interest and a lot of curiosity from the teams about how this might work and the ways that they could use it. Is it better to be used as a scouting and screening tool, or is it better for perhaps training purposes and improving our hitters that we currently have? And so there certainly was a lot of interest

there. And I think probably, you know, they did get a little bit of media attention early on. And, and so it took them a while to get to 28 of the 30 teams, as you said, but there's definitely, you know, there there's been plenty of, there's been plenty of flirtation there, I would say, but getting, but getting from the first date to the second date for DeServo has been a challenge. And I think probably the biggest barrier for them or the hurdle that they've had to try and leap over is that it's a somewhat intensive and time-consuming initiative that they're doing. And this is what makes Servo interesting to me scientifically and what makes them, I think, probably ultimately the most advanced

and beneficial down the road. But the problem is that it takes time. I mean, you have to spend 40 minutes or so with an EEG cap on your head, tapping at a laptop screen, and teams are hesitant to make their players do that. And so I think, you know, yes, the teams are, you know, interested in learning more and seeing, you know, what the benefits could be. But from DeServo's point of view, it's hard to convince them that it's worth the time and the effort to put into it. So it's been good for them to get kind of like, like I said, that first date, that initial interest, but getting to the second date, only a handful of teams have been really willing

to go that far. And it's just going to continue to take more time because they need to have more data. They need more players to be willing to do this. And it's a bit of a catch-22. to be willing to do this. And it's a bit of a catch-22. We need to get more players to do this, but at the same time, teams don't want to put as many players through this more rigorous and intensive brain scanning environment. So for me as a journalist, it was very interesting to kind of get this window into what it is, what sports science and technology is like today from the perspective of a company trying to get involved.

Yeah. And as Jeff was just alluding to with the Mookie Betts story, Theo Epstein was sort of an early adopter of this technology with that company called Neuroscouting, which is a little different from DeServo. So DeServo is actually measuring what is going on in your head, whereas some of these other companies are kind of brain training games, or they're measuring your reaction speed, or when you're picking up pitches. Can you describe just for people who haven't read a whole lot about this, just what exactly the different companies are measuring and what they're potentially able to reveal about a player's talent? Yeah, yeah. So, you know, I don't know too much firsthand about the Neuroscouting. You know, they've kind of kept to their own, but they have had a few, you know, publications

and just speaking with other folks who have used Neuroscouting in the past about what they're like. They've kind of modeled themselves after the Lumosity type of game, kind of like that video game type experience where, you know, you can have an enjoyable time, so to speak, you know, and play various games of different scenarios. And yeah, as you're doing it, you're being tested on things like reaction time and decision making. And supposedly, you know, if the better you get at playing these games, the better your on-field results will be. And those who score well in the neuro scouting, you know,

could actually be those who perform better on the field, a la Mookie Betts, who you referenced, who the Red Sox purportedly drafted out of Tennessee several years ago because, you know, he scored really well on his neuro scouting assessments. And, you know, other teams that hadn't been using that assessment didn't really think of him much as a prospect. And obviously we've all seen what he turns into. And I think, you know, this is kind of what is popular now in, especially if you're talking about neuroscience as sports, are these brain gaming type of initiatives and companies. But what made the Servo different to me is that when I first got connected with them, they were not offering anything in terms of a performance

benefit. They were saying, we're a data company. We will provide you with information that's novel and unique because we're actually using a neuroscience, neuroimaging technique, a piece of neuroimaging equipment called EEG to basically peel back the batting helmet and look inside the brain when the decision is made to swing or not swing at a pitch. And all we're doing, we're not promising anything. We're just saying we'll give you this information down to the very millisecond that a hitter is deciding, and we'll give you this information down to the very millisecond that a

hitter is deciding, and we can give you that information and you can do with it what you want. So, you know, I thought that was really interesting and different. There was really no, you know, promises about performance benefits that the teams could use that information to train or to scout. And so still to this day, from my understanding, no other company is using EEG in that way. And so there still is kind of that breakdown between those who are using neuro gaming or brain, you know, cognitive training to train or, you know, enhance athletes and a company like DeServo, which, you know, seems to be the only one that is offering that kind of analytical, you know, opportunity there for teams. And what's the best current understanding of how much of this is

inherent and how much of it is experience-based and practice-based? I mean, are we at a point, will we ever be at a point where you really can just rule someone out as a potential professional player at an early age because of their performance in tests like this? Or on the other end, the Mookie Betts side of things, identify talent at an early age that maybe even hasn't shown up on the field yet so far. Where are we headed here? Are we headed for a future where everyone gets screened with a test like this and certain players just get ruled out or bumped up because of it? Or are we still sort of finding out exactly how much this matters and how much it can change over time? Yeah, it's a great question and it's a difficult one to answer.

Firstly, there's no evidence that anybody is born with a brain made for sports, right? Let's just get that out of the way. There's no evidence of that that we know of yet, but there's plenty of evidence that the brain can change and adapt as you practice and experience different things, and that happens throughout childhood and adolescence and even into adulthood. The brain does demonstrate a good amount of plasticity. And those who train very hard, such as baseball players, they see tons of pitches. And so their brain regions that are responsible for hitting, you would expect, would reflect different changes and an ability to

continue to perform. And the brain regions that are responsible for that performance would reflect certain changes. So that's kind of the plasticity side of things. But as far as ruling anybody out, I think it's tricky, because I think what DeCervo can offer potentially is a certain baseline for teams to look at in terms of, you know, what is the window in which hitters can reasonably decide to swing at a pitch. And it's a very small window, a 95 mile an hour fastball, uh, reaches home plate in about 400 milliseconds. That's four

tenths of a second, but that doesn't account for the length of a pitcher's stride or the deception that a pitcher's uses, or, or the fact that a lot of pitchers just throw harder than 95 miles an hour. And so even that amount of time, that very short amount of time is cut in half by our own physical limitations on our body and the time it takes for our brain to send signals to our limbs to swing. And so you're already cutting that time in half. So it's a very, very short window, but half an eye blink is all the time it takes to be able to decide to swing at an incoming pitch. And so the servo is able to say, okay, these hitters who have demonstrated it on the field, their neural readings are showing that they can respond to a pitch within 350 to 300 milliseconds, let's just say. And so teams, I think, you know, for now, I think teams can use that information as an additional factor. I would, I would, I would hate to say that any team would make a decision

on a prospect, whether the draft or not draft just based on that alone. But I think that they could probably use that information just like they would use any other data. And so, and added to factor, because, yeah, I mean, players can certainly train to get better at your decision-making. If a guy is not responding quick enough to curveballs, you know, through the EEG readings, maybe give him more curveballs and you see, you know, if he can develop, but it's just, it's another metric that teams might be able to use to, to scout or to, to screen for future players. It's easy to see from the organizational perspective, of course, you want as much information on players as possible so that you can make the most informed decisions. And, but then from perspective, with contemporary or even archaic analyses, you sort of know what you're being evaluated on. If you're a quarterback, you're being evaluated on how you can see and how you

can throw the ball. If you're a hitter, it's all the same stuff. Players have been scouted for the specific skills that they have developed over time. But I would imagine that with a lot of the stuff that's being talked about here, player might not be fully aware of his own capabilities. You might not know how fast your reaction time when identifying pitch is relative to the average. So of course, we would expect that about half the players would be above average

and about half the players would be below average. But do you foresee that players, it's easy to imagine that there's going to be a lot of neuro scouting moving forward who are in the sort of the early stages now. But on the one hand, I think young people in particular are enthusiastic to learn more information about themselves. But at the same time, might you foresee a sort of a reluctance or some hesitancy, hesitation here to be evaluated because you might not know exactly what your results are going to be. And clearly, if you score poorly, it could be held against you for the rest of your career.

Yeah. I mean, I think certainly that could be the case for some people. And you've seen the same thing for athletes, for baseball players pushing back against all sorts of analytics in that way. But they've also used analytics to their benefit. I'm just thinking of a basketball example, and I realize this is a baseball podcast, but I'm using a basketball example of a guy. It sees numbers that he's much better shooting from the corner of the three-point arc. That number might not have been available to him a few years ago, but now that it is, he's going to continue to make himself more and more valuable from that, from that part of the court. And I think, you know, certainly there

are examples of that in baseball. And I think, you know, neuro scouting, not to take the name of the company, but, you know, neuro imaging and this next frontier in sports, it might be scary, you know, to, to the players that, you know, now, but the more that it's, the more they get comfortable, I'm sure they'll find ways to use it to their advantage. So I think, you know, ultimately what it comes down to is translating what you're seeing in terms of your brain readings into what the performance is on the field. I mean, all the metrics that we have today are based on post-hoc analyses, right? It's always after the swing or after the pitch is delivered.

This is now a metric that can read what's happening while the pitch is incoming. And I think, you know, the post-hoc won't necessarily change. I mean, you know, depending on, you're still, the outcome is going to stay the same, you know, unless you do something to change it, unless you use that new analysis to change your approach. And so I think there could be benefits to players to know, to have this information and say, oh, you know, I am not actually deciding to have this information and say, oh, you know, I am not actually deciding on curveballs fast enough. I can work at this.

So, yeah, I think, you know, and to be frank, you know, the players that I spoke to, and granted, these were all minor leaguers, so I'm sure they were just happy to be asked to do something. And they're just happy to be part of the organization. These are all rookie league players. But they sounded like they were kind of interested in this stuff. It's new, it's different, and kind of futuristic. So yeah, it bears watching, though. It bears watching. So we focus a whole lot on what we can see.

We talk about players' mechanics and swings and what pitches a pitcher throws because we don't know what's going on inside their heads. We can't measure that. A servo can maybe, but we can't. So I'm curious about which you think is the bigger differentiator, because you talk about both in the book that we all have unique abilities to be able to, say, pick up a pitch and make a decision about whether to swing at a pitch and recognize where it's going to go. But we also have varying levels of noise in our motor systems. And once you make that decision, you have to be able to translate it into coordination and actually hitting a pitch.

So, I mean, obviously the answer is both. You need both. But for the typical hitter, is the big league hitter there more because he's elite at something that's going on inside his head? Or is it because he's big and fast and strong and coordinated and can translate that mental decision into action? Yeah, I think, you know, you're right that it's partly both. And you mentioned noise there. Noise is something that's inherent in all in our systems. It's a static that afflicts our signals that are being sent from not to not to drop too much science on here. But it is you brought it up.

So we are not perfect movement machines. We're not robots. You know, if we were to build a robot to move today, we wouldn't add noise into it and it could make the same movements over and over again. But of course, that's not what happens to us. It we make is inherently afflicted with noise. And therefore, it's very, very difficult, if not impossible, to make the exact same movement twice. the noise in their systems in order to produce a consistent and effective swing every time, right? I mean, you know, if not, they would just be up there flailing away looking like John Carlos Stanton every time, but that's not the case. That's only the case for Stanton right now. So I don't think the problem with hitting right, the reason hitting is difficult is

because they don't have an efficient and effectively noise-free or at least noise-tolerant swing. They've figured out the way that their body can work in order to reduce the amount of noise or the affliction of noise. What the difference is, is happening inside their brain. And that is the decision-making that is ping-ponging around their various brain regions in milliseconds of time. And that's the differentiator. And that's the thing that, you know, if you're able to use a neuroimaging technique or a brain scanner,

you might be able to see. So I think for hitting, at least, for different things, like, you know, for different aspects of the sport, noise might be a bigger factor. I don't see it as being a huge factor. In hitting, I see the biggest factor overall is being that decision-making, that's all happening in your brain. We get a lot of far-fetched hypothetical questions from listeners on this podcast. And one of them is, say, if you were to suddenly discover a long-lost twin brother of Mike Trout who's out there somewhere who hasn't been playing baseball,

what would a team sign him for? Would he actually end up being good? And you touched on this briefly when you were talking about the brain's plasticity and you write about the Michael Jordan baseball experiment in your book, which we've also talked about on the show and how, although the stats aren't particularly impressive, they are actually pretty impressive when you put it in context and think about how few pitches he had seen and how long a layoff he had had. So what should our answer be to that type of question? If there's a superstar talent out there who has this latent ability to be great at baseball, but just has been away from the game,

hasn't seen the thousands and thousands of pitches that a major league baseball player typically has. Can he be any good? Will he be permanently stunted in some way because he didn't get those pitches at the formative period when you need to see them? Yeah, I think that's exactly right. I think Michael Jordan is a great example there. And so is Tim Tebow, who took even a shorter amount of time between his baseball career and his football career. It wasn't a decade or anything like Jordan's was. It was a few years. And you can see he has not torn it up in the minor leagues, and he's not ready for a major league to face major league pitching anytime soon.

And so what that speaks to is, yeah, I mean, this baseball players, professional baseball players are seeing so many pitches on a daily basis and they're working at that task of reacting. And really what it comes down to is it's more about prediction, using your expertise to better predict what a pitcher is going to deliver and where the ball is going to wind up. And so that needs to be refined. It can't go through a long period of latency and you can't just step back on a field and expect to expect to be great again. In fact, this period of latency can be shorter than you would ever expect. There's a theory called the warm-up decrement.

And the warm-up decrement says that, you know, why do we warm up? It's an interesting question. Why do you need to actually warm up your body in order to play? Why do we spend hours before a game in batting practice? And, in fact, there's studies that have shown that if you warm up, you know, doing whatever batting practice you want to do, and then you take time off, even a short amount of time is maybe, you know, half an hour to an hour, your performance is going to suffer no matterhouse and simply warmed up your muscles and not, not actually taking any swing, just put heat pads on your muscles and icy hot or whatever, got a massage, your warmup, your, your performance would be just the same as if you had taken all that batting practice and then taking a little bit of time off. And the reason is that your brain

in that interim period, whatever it is, half hour, 30 minutes, your brain is being bombarded with stimuli. We don't realize how much our brain soaks in just looking around and walking down the street and doing whatever. And in that time, your brain effectively can restart it. It almost forgets what the task it was supposed to be improving and preparing for. And so, you know, the brain is incredibly sponge-like. It soaks in a lot of information. And if you give, if you're not actively ready, if you're not really focused in right before you're about to perform, it can have a detrimental effect on your ultimate performance. It's really amazing. And so I think somebody like a Mike Trout twin brother, if he's

out there, he better start taking some hacks if he wants to make it to the major league any time soon. Yeah. So lastly, you write in the book that hitting is less about reaction than it is about prediction. The ball is just moving too fast to actually track it. So you have to sort of predict where the ball will end up and then swing there. So you could sort of say the same thing about this whole field of neuroscience and athletics. It's moving very quickly. It's still very much unsettled science in some cases, and it's hard to see exactly where things will end up. So to ask you to do a little bit of prediction, do you think that this will ultimately be

of more use and be kind of part of every team's toolbox as a part of player procurement or player development. You mention in the book that, for instance, you could queue up one of these games to mimic the pitcher you're going to face next or something and train against that pitcher. And potentially, if a hitter is having some difficulty recognizing a certain pitch type, you could have him train with that pitch type or even, you know, block out the view in one eye or something so he can get better against that weakness that he has. So which do you think, you know, 10 years, 20 years down the road, will this be a bigger part of picking players or ruling out players or improving the players that you already have? Yeah. You know, again, I hate to answer your question with both. I feel like I've answered that a few times, but I think, yeah, I think it'll be both. Or at least I can't really, at this point, I can't differentiate between the two or see,

you know, what might be. But I mean, I got into writing this because I really saw the potential of DeCervo in scouting and analytics and, you know, kind of seeing them as maybe this possible next money ball revolution. But I also think there will absolutely be training. There'll be training benefits to neuroscience. And I have no doubt that brain science and neuroscience will be involved in sports down the road.

I can't say when, but it's absolutely coming. I mean, I think sports science in general has evolved a lot in recent years, talking about understanding sleep and nutrition and yoga and all these things. But yet I still think that all those techniques and things that you can do for sports science, all those techniques and, and, you know, things that you can do for, for sports science, they still seem to me a bit like saying that, uh, that stress and cold weather, you know, will contribute to give you a higher chance of you catching a cold. But I don't think that still explains exactly why a cold will produce the sort of upper respiratory symptoms and coughing and sneezing that you end up feeling. And I think the only way to actually get that answer is through neuroscience.

And I think teams, when they're given that information, finally are going to be able to use that for much better scouting and probably much better training. But I'll say that, and just to wrap up here, I don't want to go on too long, but the thing that's keeping that from happening right now is the accessibility of the neuroscience techniques. And this is a problem that goes across all of motor research, not just in terms of sports science at all. But as I mentioned earlier, the EEG, it's a great technique, but it's time-consuming. You have to sit there and you can't move. The movement and these research techniques, it will obscure the signal and it's not good for the data that you're trying to collect. And so until they come up with a neuroscanning or

neuroimaging tool that you can wear while walking around or let's say in the batting cage, taking hacks, I think it still will be a little tough to see really, you know, neuroscience be on the field or in the dugouts. But I do think that time is going to come. I think there will be a time that we have that sort of equipment. I know scientists are working toward it. And so once that day is here, I see absolutely that this is going to be something that we see a lot more in sports. All right. Well, it is a fascinating subject and a fascinating book, which you can read now. It's called The Performance Cortex. There is a lengthy excerpt about some of the stuff we've been talking about in The New York Times, which

we will link to. You can also find Zach on Twitter at ZSchonbrun. Zach, thank you very much for coming on. Thank you very much. It was fun. All right. We'll be right back with Bob Tewksbury to talk about some mental skills that may not require an EEG to assess. He is the author of 90% Mental and the Giant's Mental Skills Coach, and he'll be joining us in just a second. A deep breath out of the steps It's only air that you feel in your chest I don't need your love Okay, you state your claim It's only blood you have in your veins

I don't need your love All right, so we are joined now by Bob Tewksbury, who you probably remember from his 13-year big league career. He was one of the best control pitchers of all time, or at least the post-World War II era. And since his retirement as a player, he's been working as a mental skills coach with big leaguers in Boston for the Red Sox and now in San Francisco for the

Giants, whom he is on the road with right now. He is also with Scott Miller, the author of the new book, 90% Mental, an all-star player turned mental skills coach reveals the hidden game of baseball. Bob, hello. Hi, guys. So a lot of your advice in the book, or maybe the primary advice for pitchers on the mound, is slow down, take your time, breathe, focus. I am wondering whether Rob Manfred made any attempt to stop the publication of this book, because you are hurting his attempts to reduce the pace of the game. We've got to speed things up. No slowing down, no breathing. Hold your breath. No, that's funny. funny but no if you watch me pitch i did all those things and still worked at a fast pace and uh and through strikes but yeah the whole pace of game thing i i think is really interesting because you know i think the

players have their natural pace and i think it's okay there's other aspects to the game that i think can cut down on the timing. But making that change would be like telling a putter on the PGA tournament, you have 15 seconds to read the putt and then make sure you putt because we've got to keep this thing moving. But no, I think that's a funny comment. Yeah, I'm kind of kidding but also sort of serious. I think there has been some even statistical research that showed that

maybe older players, more experienced players do tend to take a little more time and that it seems to benefit them. And so when you start talking about a pitch clock and the pressure of a timer ticking down somewhere, I could imagine that that has some potential to get in a player's head. And it just seems like having that time to focus and settle yourself would be beneficial, which maybe helps explain why there is more time between pitches. It's not just that players are lazing around. It's that maybe this is actually enhancing their performance. So you can understand why they would want to take a little more time.

Yeah, you know, but that said, I do think that, you know, there are some pitchers who work too slow and I think their pace does hurt their performance, you know, because it is too slow and the fielders get, you know, kind of can get a little lethargic behind you. And, you know, my whole philosophy was the guys would rather hit than field.

The faster you get them off the field to hit, the better they're going to like it and they're going to like you. But pace is important. Tempo and rhythm are important. I do think that there's a natural rhythm players have. I do think some players go too slow when things start to speed up on them or they get challenged. And I think that that's where they could learn to pitch in and around those circumstances and still have a pretty good pace. I don't want to set off any alarm bells, but so far this year, Pedro Baez's pace has improved

by five seconds. So that's something to watch. But now, I don't know if you saw about a month and a half ago, Wright Thompson wrote a feature article about Ichiro Suzuki and how he's rejoining the Mariners in Wright's words, wasn't going to be able to resolve the conflict within him. And it was an article that was very insightful, but also I think a little bit sad, a little depressing, just talking about Ichiro's compulsion to perfect himself, his perfectionism to be a baseball player. And that's running into the the end of the line with regard to his his physical skills but i think it touches on something that is of considerable interest to people even if they might not think about it where professional

baseball and especially the major leagues it stands to reason that would be selective for what we might call i don't know non-standard psychology in a player. You have to be able to withstand a lot of pressure. You have to be pretty obsessive with perfecting your skills. So what have you observed, I guess, with regard to major league baseball players versus just a general audience? How do the psychological profiles compare between those two groups? Well, I read the article and, yeah, I mean, it sounds like, you know, Dory, when he went out and rented the stadium to hit, even though it was cold,

because, you know, he had to. You know, Ichiro's a great player, and I think that preparation and routine is important. But I think anyone that succeeds, just not in baseball, you know, there's a line there of perfectionism or deliberate practice or routines that make them what they are. I think having a balance in that is what's important. Players have been playing on a regular basis since they were kids, on a very structured basis through their adolescence, through their young, early 20s. So baseball becomes who they are. And I've tried to talk to players about baseball is what you do. It's not who you are. But when it's who you are and your identity and your

daily routine functions around those activities, it does become an obsession, an obsession of achievement, an obsession of having to do these things to perform because if you don't, you don't feel like you can perform. And those are the things that you can talk to players about to kind of sift through, if you will, to say, okay, what do you really need to do to be prepared to play as part of your routine? And if you don't do that, are you going to be okay? It's like batting practice. Some guys are so obsessed with they have to hit, they have to hit. And if they don't hit, they're not comfortable. But it's batting practice. Some guys are so obsessed with they have to hit, they have to hit, and if they don't hit, they're not comfortable. But it's batting practice, and you already know how to hit.

It's a matter of what do you do when your routine gets broken or the timing of that routine gets shifted, and how do you deal with that? And that's adaptability and the ability for players to adjust. And I think it about how you've seen the perception among players of mental skills and the kind of counseling that you can provide evolve over those few decades. And is there still any stigma? Do you still get players who are reluctant to talk, whether it's out of some macho attitude or a concern that they might be perceived differently by teams or teammates. How much of that is still in the game and how much have things improved in that respect?

Yeah, well, I think, you know, as much as things change, they tend to stay the same. You know, I mean, in 86, when I first came up, strength and conditioning was something that not every team had. The Yankees had a guy named Jeff Mangold. Some teams were doing it, and it was something that really wasn't understood. Is this valuable? I think baseball players should lift. It can prohibit or inhibit performance and all those things. Then it changed, and it became very standard.

And now strength and conditioning in baseball is a paramount part of the players' daily routines. There's strength coaches at every level. Sometimes there's more than one. And there's an organization of strength and conditioning coaches that meet at the winter meetings. So it's become very formalized. And then it went into, you know, that was in the 90s. So then it went into supplements. You know, GNC, nutrition became very important.

That, you know, went a little overboard with the performance-enhancing drugs, which, you know, we all know about. And that's come back around with the drug testing. So this is kind of the last domain and performance of the three, physical, fundamental, and mental, that players can use. And Harvey and Ken Revisa and Charlie Maher, there's a lot of pioneers in the field that have created this interest as well as the field of sports psychology in general growing.

And so now almost every team has someone in the mental skills, sports psychology position for their teams. Some have more than others. Some have a full structured team of, you know, a major leaguer and one at every level in the minor leagues or at least two people in the minor leagues. So it's become very much a part of the game. And I do think that more players are receptive to it based on the fact that they've had it throughout their training in the minor leagues because it's been around now. I started with the Red Sox in 2004, so that's been 14 years. So the guys came through the system, were exposed to or educated about the mental aspects of performance, becomes a little bit more normal when you get to the big leagues

and they have a mental skills coach. There are still some players that are reluctant to it because they don't believe in it, they don't understand it, they don't want to go there, they don't want to be viewed as the weak guy talking to somebody. There's still some of that there that I think will always be there. And I think that that's normal part of society too. Not everyone would think about seeing a counselor for a personal issue or psychotherapy for something. So it's pretty mainstream. It's,

it's available for people, players, if they would like to invest the time and energy into that, but it's not for everybody. I was curious what the process is like in terms of how your services are solicited. Do players have your private number? Did they go through the team? Do you ever reach out to specific players when you think that there might be something to discuss? How does a conversation between yourself and a party get arranged in the first

place yeah that's a great question it's very you know in the minor leagues work in the minor leagues it's a lot more hands-on and the the coaches are involved more in the player development and there will be times where it would be encouraged for a player to talk to me or the team mental skills coach. At the major league level, that hasn't happened. It's more of, you know, it's like the nutritionists. You know, teams have nutritionists. Teams have chiropractors that come in, and not everyone uses the chiropractor. Not everyone pays attention to the nutritionist.

So at the big league level, it's kind of, I'm here if you need me. They have my number. I've done some presentations in the spring so that players kind of know where I'm coming from and, you know, small group presentations. But it's very much up to the player. If there's a relationship built with the player, then that's the only time that I may reach out and initiate a conversation but it must but it's got to be something that's reciprocal not intrusive so it's very much um you know you're you're kind of on call to be available to help players when they need it and sometimes you're

busier than others but you know you're you're here and available in case someone wants to do that. I believe it's part of the CBA that teams are now required to have some sort of mental skills resources available. So I don't know how, to what extent you or some other mental performance coaches or advisors speak Spanish, but I am curious if you observed any sort of cultural differences within clubhouses in terms of how players might be open or closed off to pursuing help in this area. Yeah, no, that's a huge point. You know, the field, every team right now is looking for mental skills coaches that are bilingual because, you know, there's a large percentage of Latin American, Spanish-speaking players in the game,

and there's not a lot of bilingual mental skills coaches. So that is a challenge. And when I've had to work or when I've had presentations with Spanish-speaking groups, I've used a translator, and the players are really, the minor league Latin American players are so grateful and appreciative of reaching out to them. There is a language barrier, however, with the nuances of the language that they don't quite understand that can make it difficult. So it's important to have a Spanish-speaking person on staff

to be able to help the players. And that does present a challenge, but it's one that I think every team is trying to work on to close that gap of the language barrier. So we're all familiar with the stories of, you know, pitching coach talks to player and player makes a mechanical adjustment. And maybe he starts throwing a certain pitch more or in a different way and suddenly he's a new man or, you know, same thing with a hitting coach and a tweak to your swing, you know, you do away with your leg kick, whatever it is. How often does the equivalent of that happen with a mental skills coach that we might not

be aware of because it's just not talked about as much or it's not as visible. I mean, is the effect usually something subtle or are there cases where you can say, well, you know, a mental skills coach met with this guy and was able to settle his mind in some way on the mound and he was a completely different pitcher from that day forward? Yeah, I think that's hard to quantify that. I certainly wouldn't say that I've taken credit for players' performance. I can say comfortably, and you read the book, the work with Lester or Rich Hill or Andrew Miller or Rizzo,

it's stuff that happens over time. It's the continual conversation about quieting the mind and focusing on the task. It's the continued practice of imagery so that it becomes part of your routine so that you can see the benefit of it. And, you know, I think at the major league level, a lot of what happens is just calming the anxiety of either performance or poor performance. You know, the expectations of, I've got to do this again today. I've got to play. We're in a situation, you're facing big league hitters like Corbin and then Ray and then Granke. And you've got to go out there every day and you've got to succeed. That's pressure. And then if you don't succeed, there's pressure to have your next time out there.

So I think talking to guys at the big league level, it's about eliminating those distractions, controlling those perceived pressures, and just to be able to kind of unlock them to free them up to play in the moment. And it's like parenting. You don't ever know what you say is going to help your child, but sometimes they go, you know, I remember the time you told me that, and I really remember that. And I'd be like, I said that? You know, so that's kind of one of those things that happens is, you know, words are very powerful, and when you're in a position that you can help people like mental skills coaches are,

I think that you don't understand the impact of that positively or negatively until after the fact. And you hope along the way that that is helpful. When we see, I guess you could point to young players who are signing multi-million dollar long-term extensions or just a free agent who's making life-changing money, it's really easy from the outside to say, well, again, this is life-changing money. This player is going to be set up for the rest of his life. His family's whole life is going to be figured out. This should give a lot of peace of mind. So it's easy to maybe overstate the positive impact of making a lot of money in baseball. But certainly what we don't have a window into from the outside is player psychology. So in your experiences, what sort of differences

might you have observed between players who might have seven or eight-figure contracts versus players who are either in the minors or just trying to scrape by sort of waiver guys or 30-year-old journeymen? Is there a difference in the baseball mindset between a richer and a less rich player? Or at the end of the day, does it come down to these players are motivated by wanting to be as good at baseball as possible? Yeah, I certainly can't speak for those players. I never was in that position. But I do know this is that when you start out, you know, if you don't start out playing this game for the love of the game and the desire to be on the field and just loving baseball it

doesn't matter how much money you make you're not going to have a long career it's not going to be sustained if you're playing for the money and you get the money then you kind of can lose motivation of what what's next i will say that you know the players of whom i've been in contact with who have big contracts, the majority of them, it's a byproduct of their hard work and their successes that just comes in baseball. If you do well over a period of time, you're going to be rewarded for it. I don't think that that changes their approach. It doesn't change their mindset. They still get unhappy when they don't perform well. It's still kind of who you are because of the struggle and getting there. You know, that said,

it does make life a lot easier when you know you don't have to, you know, if you do have a bad game, you're not going to get sent down or you're not going to get released. I mean, that's very freeing as compared to the, you know, 30-year-old journeyman who, you know, if he doesn't play well or he comes up because of an injury, then, you know, he's making the major league minimum or whatever his split salary is, and then he gets sent back down and his salary gets cut in half. I mean, that's hard because you just can't, you know, you're always on pins and needles about performance. So the money gives you a luxury of not having to perform well all the time.

But the reason you got the money was because you perform well for a long period of time. And, you know, it's definitely a lot easier to play when you know you have that security. But, again, it comes back down to if you don't love what you're doing, then you're not going to do it well. And it doesn't matter how much money you make. You got to love, you got to have passion for this game to play it well. Hitting and pitching coaches have always traditionally been drawn from the ranks of former players and often former high level players.

Obviously, that's the case for you. And I'm sure there are many ways in which that is helpful for you to have personally experienced the things that players talk to you about. But how common is that for mental skills coaches? To what extent is that a prerequisite? And how difficult can it be to get buy-in from players if you've never been on the mound in the spotlight with the whole crowd looking at you? Yeah, yeah, no, that's a good point. I think that when I started this, when I went back in 2004, at that time, I don't think there was any player that had a major league career that was getting a secondary education in

sports psychology and counseling. I know Don Carman was a major league player, and he works with the Boris Corporation, and he has a master's in psychology. So I think we were probably the only two that I know of. And since then, as the field has grown and teams really know that it's important to have, ideally, it's important to have players who have been there, done that. They know the feel of the locker room. They can explain experiences firsthand of what players are going through and then add the psychological background or data or research or evidence that they've studied so that it complements that position. so that it complements that position.

I think that, but it's not, you know, it doesn't mean that they do it better than the people that are in the field that didn't play. It just means they have a deeper perspective of the game. And I think more and more players are starting to do that. I think that players are starting to go back and get their degree. And, you know, I think Darren McMains, who works with Seattle, was a minor league player with the Giants and a coach and went back and got his master's. And

so there are some minor league players that never get to the big leagues that are trying to do that. And even a couple that have some time in the big leagues, I know, have done that. So it's exciting to say the field is growing in that way. And I think it's wonderful for the players, for more players to have a second career. And it's also good for the mental skills teams or group, I should say, that former players are involved to help give a perspective that they might not ordinarily have. I know that you've spent your career around Major League Baseball. You are currently employed by a Major League Baseball team, so you might not be able to

speak to this in great detail, but one of the conversations we've been having here recently is concerned minor league wages. When you are a minor leaguer, especially a minor leaguer who might not have gotten a large bonus when signing, there's already so much pressure to succeed, to try to get up to the next level, try to get up to the highest level. But do you believe that some of that pressure might be alleviated if players were provided

even $40,000, $50,000 a year instead of the below minimum wages that they are currently receiving? Yeah, I mean, no doubt. I think that it would definitely help, especially players that are married and have families. The bottom line is what the players are being paid now, and the low minors in particular, and up to AAA probably,

it costs players to play the game. The split contract for some AAA players are probably pretty good. It's a good salary. But I don't know if, I think it would make it easier from the standpoint that, you know, they don't have to worry so much about how they're going to get through the entire year because they only have, you know, they're not going to make any, they're not going to save any money to get through the season. But I don't think it would change the pressure to play because it's got to be the passion to play and the quest to get to the big leagues regardless

of the money. I still think that would be there no matter what. I don't think that that would take away the pressures. It'd probably be a little bit easier, but I still think those pressures would be there to reach that ultimate goal, and that's to have a long big league career. Can you describe what the internal monologue of, say, a pitcher who is struggling with the mental side of the game might sound like? What sort of patterns of thinking you fall into? You know, it's so hard to see. Every pitcher, almost every pitcher looks pretty impassive and expressionless on the mound, but there's obviously a lot going on there that we're not privy to. So what sort of kind of paths does the brain run down over and over when maybe things are going awry in that area? And to what

extent is it context sensitive? Like, is it, you know, a big high leverage moment you're more likely to fall into those patterns? Or do people who are susceptible to that sort of thing tend to get weeded out by the time ever worn a big league uniform for a day. And I think it's less than 2% of those have played for 10 years. So it's a very tough spot to get to. But the narrative, you know, I can speak for myself. You know, when my feet, when I get up in the morning the day I was pitching, my body knew that it was pitching. You started to build up anticipation of the game.

Sometimes that feeling was like, oh God, I just don't feel it today. Other times was, I know I'm going to go out and win today. I think those feelings are attributed to past games or how you might feel presently with your mechanics or what's going on. And sometimes you feel fine and then the first guy of the game gets a hit and you're like, oh no, here's one of those days again. It's like the golfer that bogeys the first hole. He's already cashed in the whole round. Or sometimes, you know, it's a constant chatter of controlling the mind because regardless of the thought that you have, because thoughts can come and go, you know, if the pitcher's on the mound and he goes, oh, you know, first guy doubles and he goes, oh, it's going to be one of those games, you know, he can let that thought pass and then he can focus, choose to focus back on, all right, it's the first inning, I need to get it out, you know, hopefully without advancing him. But, you know, so you kind of pitch to the situation. But young pitchers who haven't learned that dialogue might be thinking, I can't give up a run here. You know, it's the first inning, I don't want to fall behind. What would the coach think? You know, where I said as

a veteran pitcher would be kind of talking through the inning about how to get out of it. You know, and then there's certainly there's times where you're deep into the game and there's a couple guys on base and you have a chance for the win and you're thinking about getting the win instead of making the pitch. And sometimes you leave the field not getting the win and wondering what the heck just happened. So it's the constant dialogue of the situation that you're presented with, your level of confidence pertaining to coping or getting out of that situation, and it fluctuates. And that's the importance of having mental skills,

is that you don't always feel good or feel confident, but you still have to focus on the task at hand. And when you learn the mental skills, in spite of your feelings, you can act a certain way and give yourself a chance to be consistent in performance. You know, you may not always be on top of your game, but, you know, instead of giving up five runs in four innings, maybe you give up three runs and you go six. That's a huge difference. I know the answer here is probably going to be both. It's almost always both.

I'm still going to make you pick one. But if you had to decide where more time spent, more exposure to mental preparation might be of benefit, would you say that it would be more important for players who are in the minors or players who have already come up to the majors? And maybe it tastes a little bit of success. You can think of guys who are struggling as rookies or maybe veterans who were really good in their peak, but now they're starting to struggle. Do you think that it's of greater use maybe to the teams to have players in the majors have that direct access, or would it be more important to sort of establish the foundations with 18 to 22 year olds down in the system? I think the minor leagues is where you develop that. So it would kind of be like

the developmental process. You know, it'd be like going through one through 12 in the minor leagues as it related to school. You know, you need teachers, you need to learn how to read, write, you need to do those things. And then graduate school would kind of be the big leagues. You know, I think that it's still needed there. But if you're saying, when would you rather, if I were to implement a program for development and I would want to start it in the big leagues or in the minor leagues, I'd start it in the minor leagues first. So I have to ask you about this. In 1998, your last year in the majors, you were 37. You struck out 60 guys in 148 in the third innings and yet were somehow still a league average pitcher pitching at the height of, well, that home run era at least and allowing a lot of

balls in play, that must have taken some courage and some mental skills just to get on the mound in that sort of environment. So we've seen the game transition further away from the type of pitcher that you were, and there are reasons for that. Obviously, you know, velocity tends to be helpful and strikeouts are certain outs and balls in play are not always. And so you can see why teams have gravitated toward that type of pitcher. But do you think that the type of pitcher that you were has now become undervalued in a way or not developed enough? Is it possible to be the kind of pitcher that you were in today's extremely contact-averse game?

Oh, wow, that's a great question. Yeah, I don't know what it took for me to go out there. Maybe a batting screen in front of me helped because there were so many balls put in play. But that's why I had to become a good pitcher because the balls were a good fielding pitcher. You know, I still think that think that wow that's such a good question i need to process that for a little bit you know certainly balls in play pitchers now they

want swings and miss stuff you read about otani you read about the ability for hitters to have swing and miss stuff and how important that is and i think it's more important in the minor in the bullpen than it is in the rotation so you know certainly as we compare myself to starting pitching in the philosophy of that now i still think that it could work because under the assumption that fewer walks means better command i think that that would help with positioning of the players with the analysis that you have because the ball's going to be put in play you have a greater idea of where it's going to be put in play so I still think that that can play you know I had exceptional command you know especially of the fastball I think that

that's a strength that would still play today, no matter of velocity, because, you know, you can position, you know, you know the ball is going to be put in play, the fielders can play appropriately. So I'd like to think that it could still work. Absolutely. Well, and I guess one tactic you had, which you talk about in the book, and this also has just about gone out of the game, but you had the Ephus, and you write about how you used the Ephus against peak Mark McGuire and how well it worked. Can you relate that story? Because that's something I wish we saw more of. Yeah, no, it's so, I always threw this, you know, slow curveball, and then I would just try to, let's see how slow I can throw it and still get it over the plate. And so it got down to like 47 miles an hour, I think.

And I used it occasionally. And it was really a curveball. It wasn't a lob ball. Rick Sewell or Dave LaRoche had a lob ball. Mine had forward spin. I threw it just like my curveball, but I just threw it really slow. So McGuire, in 97, Mack was playing with Oakland, and I tried to throw a fast. I shook off Steinbach, and I threw a fastball in,

and he hit the cameraman in center field. And I remember Steine came out to me and lifted up his mask, and he goes, nice pitch. And he went back behind home plate. So the next year, we're doing the scouting report and i said i want to i'm going to just throw him the ephus what the heck and so the he was batting third and there's 44 steps from the metrodome at the old metrodome from the clubhouse down to the playing field and uh so it got wind that the relievers usually didn't come down until after

the first inning. I said, if I get the first two guys out and there's no one on, I'm throwing this thing. So I get the first two guys out and you heard a bunch of relievers run down the stairwell to be in the dugout to see this. So I flipped it up there and he took the first one and he kind of smiled and i threw it again and he i think he grounded the first or something and he had i just saw the video of it on the mlb network and he and he had this big smile on his face and then next time he came up i did it again and the crowd was like oh you know i i really felt like I was a... I know players are entertainers in a sense,

but I felt like I was really an entertainer at that point, and he popped it up. The third time, I threw him another curveball, but it quote-unquote hard at 70 miles an hour, and he got a base hit to left, but the fans were kind of anticipating another Ephus, but I didn't want to push my luck with it. And my son actually named it the two-fingered, you know, the Dominator

because, you know, he was about seven or eight at the time. And he's like, yeah, I like that pitch. It should be called the Dominator. But I had success. I threw it to Manny Ramirez, Willie McGee. I threw it to Albert Bell, 3-0. He didn't like that very much. So I had a lot of fun with it. And so coincidentally, at that point, I was doing a limited edition lithograph painting of McGuire and Griffey because that was the year they were chasing the home run. And we were going to sell that for the Boys and Girls Club.

And both players agreed to sign 100 copies of the print. And it was successful and it was great. Those guys are great about it. But I felt bad that I was throwing back these big Ephus pitches. So I sent them over a note and said, hey, look, I hope you understand. I was just trying to have some fun. And he wrote a note back that said, oh, I loved it.

I'm a sucker for those. I would have swung at them all day. And so it was really cool that he had as much fun with it as I did. And it's certainly something a lot of people remember. In closing, whenever we get the opportunity to talk to a past but somewhat recent pitcher, we have to ask, you faced Barry Bonds 52 times. You walked him three times, which was very low for a pitcher facing Barry Bonds. Unsurprising.

Struck him out four times. Only allowed three home runs. Kept him as under control as you can reasonably keep Barry Bonds, as long as you're not Chuck McElroy. I just have to ask, is there anything in particular you remember about facing Barry Bonds? You faced him a little pre-peak, but even pre-peak, Barry Bonds was maybe the best player in baseball. Yeah, well, he's the only guy that hit a grand slam off me, and it was the second home run

of the game. I actually saw Barry in spring training, and somehow they were talking about pitches down and into lefties and and I still remember it was in at old Qualcomm Park in San Diego and Giants were in town and I got him out on a fastball away his first time up and then he hit a home run in like the third or fourth inning and and then he came up again and and the bases were loaded. I think there was one out. And I was like, you know what? I don't have anything I can blow by him.

I want to try to trick him. So I thought I'd get cute and try to throw a little cut, slide, or fastball back foot. And, you know, he hit it into the right field bleachers or something. And so I was sharing that with him. And I go, I said, that was probably a good idea, but there's one thing that was missing. And he said, yeah, velocity. It wasn't hard enough. And so it ended up being a home run.

But I don't think he remembers that, but I remember it vividly. And I just thought I'd try to come up with an inventive pitch that he hadn't seen yet, but it didn't matter. He was a great hitter for sure. Well, we've kept you long enough. It just occurs to me to ask maybe quickly, are you pro or anti-mound visit limits? Does that have any bearing on mental skills if some of those visits are designed to give a pitcher a mental break as much as a physical one? I think they're great. I think that sometimes, you know, they go out there. I don't know if you asked a pitcher what the pitching coach said to him the second he turned around and walked away,

I don't know if anyone would remember it. So I think limiting those visits is great, especially with, you know, the guys on second base. I know there's a lot of video and teams are checking out the signs, but there's got to be a way and you can still communicate a sign with the pitcher that allows the play to continue and not be stopped by a visit. So, no, I think it's a good thing. I like that change. All right. No, I think it's a good thing. I like that change.

All right. Well, you can read much more about some of the stuff we've discussed and other topics in the book, which is called 90% Mental. We will link to it. You can also find out more about Bob and what he does at his website, BobTooksbury.com. Bob, thank you very much for joining us. Awesome, guys. Loved it. Loved it.

That was great. Thank you. Thanks so much. Thank you so much. All right. We enjoyed both of those conversations. Hope you Awesome, guys. Loved it. Loved it. That was great. Thank you. Thanks so much. Thank you so much. All right. We enjoyed both of those conversations. Hope you did too. Please pick up the books if you're interested in hearing more. And please support this podcast on Patreon by going to patreon.com slash effectively wild. Five listeners who've already signed up and pledged some small monthly amount include Justin Dunlap, Danny P, Bing Zhu, James Edmiston, and Kevin Wickman.

Thanks to all of you. You can also join our Facebook group at facebook.com slash groups slash Effectively Wild. And you can rate and review and subscribe to Effectively Wild on iTunes. Feel free to leave your own review about what we should rename this podcast, as long as it's five stars. Thanks to Dylan Higgins for his editing assistance. And please keep getting in touch with me and Jeff. Dylan Higgins for his editing assistance. And please keep getting in touch with me and Jeff.

Send us your questions and comments via email at podcast at fangrass.com or via the Patreon messaging system. If you are a supporter, we will be back with one more episode this week. Talk to you then. And you wonder again and again Guess you're the one that's insane So grab a hold and let's make a change Cause I've lost my brain