Effectively Wild: A FanGraphs Baseball Podcast - Effectively Wild Episode 1445: CC Me

Episode Date: October 19, 2019

Ben Lindbergh and Meg Rowley banter about their upcoming live event, review ALCS Game 4, the Yankees’ precarious position, and the career and last appearance of CC Sabathia, then discuss the significance of MLB both allowing investment funds to take minority stakes in multiple clubs and proposing to downsize and reorganize the minor leagues before […]

How could I have ever needed such a cold heart to count on? And how could I have ever wanted such a cold shoulder to cry on Hello and welcome to episode 1445 of Effectively Wild, a Fangraphs baseball podcast brought to you by our Patreon supporters. I'm Meg Rowley of Fangraphs, and I'm joined as always by Ben Lindberg of The Ringer, who sounds a little bit better. Ben, how are you? A little bit better, yeah. I'm on the path to recovery. I'm glad to hear that. Sorry, bud.

Thank you. I mean, I'm sorry that you're ill. I'm glad you're on the path to recovery. You know, the sequencing on that. You want my illness to linger. No, I do not. The sequencing on that was not ideal. The playoffs makes, you know, Swiss cheese brains of us all i suppose yes and congested

everything but i promise to be back to full health by november 21st oh because because we have an exciting event fangraphs live i promise i won't yell at our attendees, but I will be similarly enthusiastic. Yes, Fangraphs is coming to New York in November. We recognize that the winter months are sad and that we all miss baseball, and so what better time to talk about baseball than when there is no baseball happening? So November 21st, several members of the Fangraphs staff including me will be trekking to New York and you and I will be emceeing a very fun event at

Subculture and tickets are on sale now at Fangraphs.com we will be joined by Jay Jaffe and Craig Edwards and Eric Longenhagen and Kylie McDaniel and then also several friends of the site including Lindsay Adler and Mark Carrick of The Athletic

and Mike Petriello of MLB.com for a fun evening of baseball talk. And if you are not in the greater New York area and unable to join us that evening, don't worry. We will also be releasing it as an episode of Effectively Wild. Yeah, yeah, quite a lineup. This is fun. Yeah, it should be.

It should be a good time. So we'll link to the event announcement when this goes live, but get your tickets now. Yeah, tickets are going fast. I assume. I don't actually have any idea whether tickets are going, but yeah, I assume that they will. I assume that with that lineup, they will, even if people have to suffer through me for three panel sessions so yeah that'll be fun and in other us talking to you news we do have a couple of playoff live streams for our patreon supporters coming up so if the Yankees can manage to win a game and extend the ALCS we and Sam will be doing that on Saturday for ALCS game. And if they don't win and if the Astros close it out on Friday,

then we will pick a couple World Series games to talk to you during. So you can sign up on Patreon. I think there is a level for access to those live streams. There is also a different higher level that gets you access to a free Fangraphs ad-free membership, which in turn gets you discounts on this Fangraphs Live event. It's all connected. Wheels within wheels. Wheels within wheels.

I should say, yes, if you are a Fangraphs member, you get 25% off all the tickets you purchase as long as you're logged in when you purchase. So, yeah. All right. So we have a baseball game to talk about before we get to some emails maybe and some baseball news. So the Yankees were defeated in game four, eight to three, and it was not a pretty loss for them. Any loss that they could have sustained at this point in the LCS would have been pretty devastating given what faces them now.

Because going into game five, they are facing Justin Verlander in New York. And then if they survive that challenge, they would have to win back-to-back games in Houston, including a Garrett Cole start. They would have to be the first team to beat the Astros with Garrett Cole starting since July, going back 16 starts of his. So tall order, tall order. So on Thursday, the game was ugly in the late innings for most of the game. It was not really, it was just the Astros being good and beating the Yankees and doing so at their own game, hitting a couple of three-run homers. The Yankees hit one two-run homer and really the story of this game. And I suppose the series since game one, when the Yankees thrashed the Astros 7-0, is that the Yankees haven't hit with runners in scoring position, which is just one of those things. And it sort of stood out in game four because they struck out 13 times and the Astros only struck out six times, I think. And so there was a whole lot of chatting on the broadcast about how you can't strike out in the playoffs and that's terrible. And it's true that there is maybe some advantage

to being a high contact team in the playoffs, but it's not that huge an advantage. And the Yankees were a great team with runners in scoring position all season long. They were by far the best team overall in those situations. They were far better relative to their overall offensive line than the Astros were in those situations. And their strikeout rate with runners in scoring position during the regular season was almost identical to the Astros in those situations. So it's not like this has been some highly exploitable lineup all season long that just falls apart in the clutch or something. If anything, they've done quite well and they continue to do quite well in the ALDS where most of the other playoff teams were not hitting with runners in scoring position.

where most of the other playoff teams were not hitting with runners in scoring position, Yankees went 11 for 34, and then they were good in game one. So we're really just talking about three games here, and that can happen. And if it happens in a best-of-seven series against the best team in baseball, that is probably not going to lead to success. But neither of these teams has been hitting well in this series. If you include game one, I think the Yankees have actually out hit the Astros in this series overall and with runners in scoring position. There just hasn't been a lot of scoring, which one would think would change because these lineups are just too good, even with the good pitching and the weather and the de-juiced ball and all the rest.

It's just that in that game, the Astros got two three run homers and the Yankees got three bases loaded strikeouts. That's not going to go well. No, that's a good way to start vacation. It's one of those things where you feel for individual players like Gary Sanchez. When Ben Clemens wrote his recap of this game for FanGraphs, he noted that when Sanchez came to the plate in the first inning, which Gary Sanchez bats seventh. So if he's at the plate in the first, you feel like you're in a good spot. That means good things have happened for you, right? The Yankees had a 66.1% chance of winning the game. And if he had hit a home run there, it would have ballooned up to almost 89%.

A walk would have gotten them to 74%. But inside, he struck out. And of course, he would hit a home run, as you noted, but it just came later in the game. So sometimes things are just a matter of sort of fluky circumstance and sequencing. And even when you get the result you want, it's not quite at the right moment. Yeah. And they really had Granke on the ropes in the first inning. He walked three batters, which is very unusual for him. And he walked a batter with the bases loaded. That was the Yankees' first run.

But then, yes, he got out of it and he struck out Sanchez. And that was that. And the Astros had Brad Peacock warming up in the first inning. So that game could have gone very, very differently with a hit there. That might have been the end of Granke. And then the Astros would have had to do a bullpen game basically leading into four consecutive days, which would have been bad. So that really would have changed the whole series right there, but that didn't happen, and Granke sort of settled down, and that was that. So the Yankees got enough length out of Tanaka that they didn't totally kill their bullpen.

So they didn't use Britton. They didn't use Chapman. Totally killed their bullpen. So they didn't use Britton. They didn't use Chapman. They barely used Adovino, who, again, did not get an out and has had four outings where he has not recorded an out this postseason, which, as Sam tweeted, is a record and is not ideal. I think his playoff ERA is up to almost 20 at this point. So he was such a big part of their bullpen success all season long. They really need him and need to keep trusting him maybe to get through these next few games if it even gets to

that point. But they didn't use their bullpen guys so much that you can't imagine them surviving these next few days. But yeah, that was ugly. It got especially ugly in the late innings because four errors and a wild pitch and a pass foul and normally reliable fielders, guys like DJ LeMahieu and Claybert Torres, they combined to make those four errors. And I know that there was some strange spin and weird bounces and everything, but it still like you know basic little league kind of get in front of the ball situations so yeah i felt so bad for out of you know it was such a what has unfortunately been a very him little bit of business in the eighth there where uh he didn't look especially sharp and then he was also undone a bit by his by his defense you know one of the guriel reached on that uhMahieu error. Although I have to say, when they slowed it down and you could see the spin on that ball, I get it. I get why that was an error, but also, wow. Yeah. There was a really good replay of the Bregman swing and it was

literally off the end of the bat, just total cue ball. Yeah. So, you know, that happens. And then, you know, you have all the errors. And then, you know, sandwiched in between all that stuff. I guess we should talk about this now. It was just like the most heartbreaking way for CeCe Sabathia's career to seemingly come to a close. You know, we got news earlier this morning that he has been replaced on the roster. this morning that he has been replaced on the roster. And I just, I do not have the attachment and affection to CC that I say I have to Felix. And obviously, his career has gone quite differently. And I think that there is emerging consensus that he will be,

as we think about how starter standards have changed for the Hall of Fame, that he will be a Hall of Famer. And he has battled through so much in his career and this year. Yeah. And I guess there is some tragic kind of poetry to him, you know, literally going out when he physically couldn't throw the ball anymore. Although, God, he did try. Yes. Yes. So it is sad, and I was happy to see in an inning where Yankees fans kind of gave the boo-bird to Ottavino that they rallied beautifully to the occasion

and cheered for CeCe as he left the mound with the trainer. But man, was that sad. Yeah, it was. And then Girardi talking about him on MLB Network afterward and choking up was sad. Made me sad, Ben. Yeah, me too. Yeah, he had the outing in game two where he came in for a batter and got an out in

the 10th, and that would have been a nice way for his career to end. Or if he had gotten out of that jam that he inherited in game four, walked off the mound triumphant, that would have been a nice way for things to end. Or, of course, if the Yankees kept winning and he got to pitch in the World Series. So this was not a good way for it to end for his body to betray him as it has all season and for multiple seasons. And he keeps coming back and he keeps making himself go back to the mound and getting healthy enough to pitch again. And I think everyone admires that effort that he's made and not just the physical breakdowns, but his struggles with alcoholism and just everything that he has been through to be back on the mound.

I think his approval rating is probably about as high as a baseball player's can be. It seems like everyone likes him, everyone respects him, and no one wanted to see him go out because his shoulder got bulky and he wasn't able to continue. I do think there's something noble about it. This was the definition of leaving it all on the field. So you have to respect the wounded warrior walking off the field, having battled to the end. The thing that was sad for me, I think, was that it didn't seem like he was able to enjoy the fan appreciation at all as he was heading off the field. And I get it because he had just gone from this intense playoff moment to his body breaking again and then having to leave before he wanted to.

And the fans, as you said, they were pretty quiet because things were not going the Yankees way, but they did rally to their credit and were able to appreciate what that moment was and salute him. But he didn't acknowledge it in any way. And it looked like he was sort of doing the yelling into his glove thing as he was heading off the field. So it would have been a lot to ask, I guess, to transition from being a competitor in this important moment to then experiencing some physical pain to then segueing into like having

the perspective to see, oh, this is my last time on a field and the fans are cheering me and I should, I don't know, tip my cap or do something dignified. Like I get why he didn't do that. But I'm sad that he didn't get that because like even Felix got that. Like, you know, you want that last moment where everyone is cheering your name and you're able to sort of drink it in and have it be a mutual thing where they are appreciating you and you are appreciating them appreciating you. And that was just not how this went. Yeah, I mean, I imagine that he will get quite the reception at the park tonight.

Yes. So I think you're right that it is in no way a failing, and I'm not suggesting you were suggesting it was, but it is in no way a failing to not be able to set aside the literal pain and also the emotional pain of that moment. And so I hope he gets a nice opportunity this evening to sort of, you know, take off the cap and say, Hey to everybody. But man, it's just, it's been, it's been a year for our having to navigate our emotional relationship with pitchers. Yes, left-handed pitchers specifically. Yeah, we've had some moments this season.

We've had some feelings we've had to sort through. I think that when you talk to anyone on that beat, and this will not come as a surprise to anyone, he is just so well-regarded in that clubhouse and his ability to bring, bring other guys on the roster in and reach across every conceivable, you know, line of age and background and place and career is just really remarkable. So, you know, I look forward if we get it to an Astros nationals world series, but I think the one thing that will taint that for me is not getting a chance to see him pitch again.

Yeah. It's a bummer. And unlike the Kershaw moment that we talked about, this wasn't an event that's going to change how he's remembered or anything like that. So it's not as if this changes the narrative about his career the way that Kershaw's postseason failure does. This would have been really nice to see him have a last great moment and to get to enjoy it in this position, not that I would want to go out like this or that I would want to deal with health issues. But in a way, maybe I would almost be grateful for the clarity that comes with just not being physically able to pitch anymore. Because as long as you can physically do it, then you're going to be tempted to do it because you like playing baseball and there are a lot of perks that come with playing baseball.

And so in a way, it's a difficult situation for a lot of players at the end of their careers where maybe they can physically play, but they're not playing at the same level anymore. And so it's like, do I want to come back and play at this diminished level or do I want to just go out when I'm closer to the top? But sometimes it's just like, well, I can't go on. Like I've tried to go on and my knee keeps breaking down and my shoulder keeps breaking down and the game is telling me to stop now, which in a way, I think I might actually value like not in that moment, but later when it's like, okay, I don't

have to wrestle with this decision anymore. Like I've put myself through all of this. I've done everything I can. I can claim to have had the jersey ripped off my back. Like this is it. So in that sense, I guess if there's sort of a silver lining, it's like, all right, this is his body sending a signal that this was the right decision to call it here. I think that's right. I mean, I don't know what it is like to face that. Every time he pitched this year, I kept thinking about what Lindsay told us in August, that his baseline pain level in the knee was an eight.

That that was just his baseline. Right. You know, every day when he did this, he was at an eight. that was just his baseline right you know every day when he did this he was at an eight um and so to get it replaced yeah yeah and so i i thought about that every time he took the mound from the moment we had that conversation with her onward and i think that you're right that there is a clarity that comes with it and it's it's a hard clarity to reach under other circumstances i don't remember which Dodgers postseason run this was, so people will, I'm sure, remember.

But I remember a moment from a couple of postseasons ago where I think Adrian Gonzalez tried to steal a base or maybe he tried to tag up and go when he should not have, and he was out comfortably. And I remember thinking in that moment, like, yeah, because like at one point in all of our lives, we are young and strong or a version of young and a version of strong. And our memories of those moments are clear and our ability to grapple with our human aging and

our bodies as they are as we age can be sort of spotty and so sometimes uh our minds play little tricks on us and they're like well hey what if you're still what if you're still young and strong what if you're still fast right and and it is an understandable human impulse to test that because we are we are hopeful that there will be uh a surprise on the other end of it that we will find ourselves to be younger and stronger than we think ourselves to be. And often we are very disappointed and perhaps a little embarrassed to find the reality

that meets us on the other side of that memory. So I think that there is a piece that can eventually come from an honest accounting of our abilities, although it, I imagine, just takes some time to sort of reach that spot though CeCe seems to be kind of well along in that process having decided before the season to to have this be his last go so man I hope I hope that he just has like the best happiest most rewarding time in his retirement it likely, based on what we've heard from folks around the team,

that he will still be involved in baseball in some capacity. And I can't think of anyone who'd be a better ambassador for the Yankees, specifically in baseball, more generally than him. But sorry, CeCe. We sure have enjoyed watching you pitch, though, bud. Yeah, and I will say that we got a lot of CeCe. So it wasn't like we were cheated of yes we sure got a lot of him which is great he's 39 and there was a point where it

looked like he might be done or sort of circling the drain baseball wise several years ago and he found this new life he invented himself he started He started throwing the cutter. He became an average or above average starting pitcher when he was able to stay healthy for years more than it looked like he was going to be able to. So to go back to the Felix discussion, it looks

like that is not what we're going to get with Felix. So there's an added level of sadness with him because and granted, he started young too, but so did CeCe. And with Felix, you always thought, well, maybe he'll have that portion of his career where we can enjoy him, not at his peak, but at a serviceable level. And that just hasn't happened with him, where CeCe has been able to make that adjustment and stay around for several more years of productive pitching.

So there's that. And, you know, he threw almost 3,600 innings in the regular season, plus another 130 or so in the postseason. So he's been a workhorse. He's had an awful lot of pitching. He got to do the thing that he wanted to do for a very long time at a very high level. And I hope and expect that he will one day be in the Hall of Fame because of that. Yeah, I think that's right.

And I will say that there was a slight silver lining to this for me and maybe for me alone in that we got to see a demonstration of the strategy, the mid-plate appearance pitching change, not the circumstances in which I would have liked to see this, but because we don't actually get to see a team do this to make mid-plate appearance changes for the interest of strategy of confusing the batter, as we've discussed, the closest proxy that we have to that

is when someone does get pulled because of injury. And in this situation, we saw the Yankees go from soft tossing southpaw CeCe Sabathia to extremely hard throwing righty Jonathan Loizaga with a 2-1 count on George Springer. threw two pitches and Springer looked totally overmatched. He, I think, fouled one off and then he foul tipped and struck out. And that was that. And that was kind of proof of concept. I mean, I'm not saying that it was definitely because he had to see a new pitcher in the middle of a plate appearance, but to go from 80-something throwing lefty to 99-100 Malprower throwing righty in the middle of a plate appearance and looking as overmatched as he did. That's kind of what we've had in mind when we've been talking about why that might actually make sense sometimes.

There have been situations in this postseason where I've thought that the strategy might make sense and no one has tried it, but we've gotten emails. Here's an email that we got from listener Matt, and this was Game 2 of the NLCS. He said,

I'm watching Game 2 of the NLCS, the extended at-bat between Sean Doolittle and Jose Martinez. Doolittle had already faced three batters prior to Martinez. Martinez has the platoon advantage and has hit lefties well in his career. Daniel Hudson has been warming for a couple batters prior to Martinez's entry in the lineup and was presumably ready to go.

All of the above would be a reason to just bring Hudson in for Doolittle to start the at-bat. However, Dave Martinez chose to stick with Doolittle. This looked at first to be a good move as Doolittle quickly went ahead 0-2. However, Martinez refused to go away, fouling several tough pitches off, including pitch number 7, which was notably the first off-speed pitch Doolittle had thrown. At this point in the at-bat, why not bring Hudson in? He gets to start the at-bat with a 2-2 count, effectively with two chances to punch out Martinez. Hudson also throws right-handed, which eliminates the platoon advantage and also forces Martinez to pick up a completely different release point and repertoire with no margin for error.

And he went on to ask, can you think of a better situation to introduce a batter mid at bat? Multiple people contacted me about that very situation. And of course, the Nationals didn't do it. And Martinez doubled and scored a run, which was the Cardinals' only run in that game. Obviously, it wasn't like the Nationals needed much more pitching help in that series. Obviously, it wasn't like the Nationals needed much more pitching help in that series, but these situations arise and no one yet has actually taken advantage of that. So sorry that CeCe had to be the one to go to make this happen, but that was sort of a demonstration of how it could work the most likely to try it yeah it does you think you think it's inevitable it's happening all over in college baseball yeah mlb teams are hiring college coaches they're paying attention to this stuff it's gonna happen one of these days yeah i i would put in terms of their sort of approach to things my money on the astros and i suppose if we think that the

college route is the most likely to result in this, that we should keep an eye on those twins. Keep an eye on those twins. Yes, that could happen too. Yeah. Yeah. Right. Or the Rays maybe because this is basically like the opener for a single plate appearance sort of. So they'd be the ones.

Goodness. So going into game five, Fangraphs gives the Yankees an 8% chance of surviving this series. And that seems, if anything, generous. I don't know. It's not impossible that a team as good as the Yankees could win three games in a row. We would think nothing of that in the regular season. Even against the Astros, we wouldn't think that much of it in the regular season. But Verlander, Cole, two of the three games on the road,

that's just an extremely tough assignment. Yeah, it's a hard road to hoe. And, you know, I'm sure that the Astros, I mean, the Astros want to make it to the World Series regardless of how they do it. But they have to be thrilled at the prospect of being able to sort of wrap this up on Friday and then be able to take advantage of a couple of rest days because every day that Max Scherzer gets to rest that arm, you just have to feel terrified.

And then you could have Cole lined up for game one and potentially for a game seven appearance if it came to that. Yeah. There are all sorts of reasons why they want to win tonight, but yeah, poor Yankees. I don't know. Poor Yankees. What have we come to? Who am I, Ben?

What has happened in my life? We can get Dylan to delete that if you want. No, I think that I have to grapple with my current emotions i think i need to face my feelings my goodness poor yankee at least yeah there we go there we go that'll work and and you know i how can i find my way to this i mean paxton has to go tonight of great affection for him so yankees now we're back up to two at least yeah all right yeah anyway wouldn't draw any large conclusions from what has happened here i mean glaber torres has been great in the clutch he's like the guy you would want up in that situation that rose in the fifth with the bases

loaded and then he struck out then to edwin Encarnacion is one for 15 in this series, but he was good all year. He hit well in the ALDS. It's just, it's the playoffs. It happens. You have good games, you have bad games. And when you have a few bad games in a row against a really good team that you can't afford to give any extra outs, then you're probably going to lose. Yeah. Yeah.

But then you'll get to rest and recuperate from your cold. Yeah, I could use a rest too as much as Max Scherzer maybe. Yeah. Ben, make sure to get a flu shot. Oh, yeah. Thanks for the reminder. This is what I'm telling all of our baseball writer and editor pals. You got to take a minute to go get your flu shot.

Don't forget. Yeah, I usually do forget or just neglect to do it. And I sometimes think, well, I don't actually see anyone in person. That'll protect me. I guess that's true. Working from home will be my flu shot because I won't actually encounter any people except that I am married. And Jessie does not work from home. She goes to an office. She brings all the office germs back. In fact, this very cold is a cold that I think I inherited from

her, which she inherited from someone in her workplace, probably, not to point any fingers at my wife for making me sick. She's also been taking good care of me. We like Jesse. We're pro-Jesse. We're pro-flu shot. We're also pro-people staying home from work if they can help it if they are sick. Yeah, sure. All right. So maybe a couple emails, but can we do like a brief, confusing, complex baseball news explainer segment? Yes. And maybe not even explaining because we're still trying to understand it

ourselves. So there are two things that have been announced this week. And I know that you and Ben Clemens already discussed one of them on an episode of Van Grouse Audio, two former finance people talking about finance and baseball. Finance stuff. Yeah. So there was a report from Bloomberg this week that Major League Baseball will now allow investment funds to take minority stakes in teams. I've possibly put you to sleep with that sentence. I myself struggled to be interested in this at first or even to understand it because there's a whole lot of business terminology involved here. it because there's a whole lot of business terminology involved here. And I have a friend, Eric, from college who whenever we would come across someone talking about business, we would just look at each other and nod and say, bonds. And that was kind of how we processed business news because we don't understand it and don't really have that strong an interest in it.

But Ben Clemens did a really great job of writing up this news for Fangraphs because it is a complex subject. And there is a lot of lingo and business terminology involved. But he did a very clear breakdown where even I could follow it and understand the potential implications. And you presumably added that and have also talked to Ben and maybe have some insight into this yourself. So can you give us a quick breakdown of what this could possibly mean and why we should care? Sure. And we'll link to Ben's piece because, yeah, he does a great job of explaining it.

But basically baseball is contemplating changing their ownership rules to allow investment funds to take minority stakes in teams. So the reason we care about this is, you know, a lot of teams have enjoyed significantly increased franchise values over the years, right? It's good business to own a share of a baseball team and many minority owners. So owners that do not have decision-making authority, right? They're not the, they're not the folks who hold the trophy up at the end of the season. If a team wins world series, they're not the names you necessarily know. But they are interested, many of them in being able to realize the profits from their investment, right? Because that share of a team is worth a lot, but they don't get any of the money from it unless they sell it. And because the value of franchises

has increased so much, finding buyers for those minority shares is actually harder than it has been in the past because they're worth so much, which, you know, I think Ben notes this in the piece, your mileage may vary on how big a problem you actually see that being. But, you know, I think Ben notes this in the piece, your mileage may vary on how big a problem you actually see that being. But, you know, it was easier in years past to find either an individual or a group of individuals who could, you know, pony up a couple million dollars to buy that stake. It's a lot harder when those stakes are worth $100 million. So there is a liquidity issue in that market. Because you're not getting a controlling interest. It's just like, spend $100 million

to buy into this team, but not actually have any say in the decision making, even though you get some perks and you get to say that you're a minority owner of a baseball team, which is cool. And you get free tickets and stuff. And maybe you make money in the long run, but it's not quite as glamorous as an ownership stake where you actually can call the shots. Right. So in an effort to increase the pool of potential buyers for those minority stakes, baseball is contemplating opening it up to investment funds, which means pension funds and college endowments,

but also means, you know, investment vehicles that are slightly more aggressive in the way that they manage their assets like hedge funds. So the place where this could potentially be concerning, again, these are minority stakes that they are considering opening up the door to. So it is not decision makers, but it is not hard to envision a time when that decision itself might change or where funds might say buy multiple minority stakes and eventually be able to establish something of a controlling interest where they would make decisions together. And most funds have a fiduciary responsibility to maximize returns for their investors, right? It is, they are required ethically and often legally to make as much money for the underlying

investors in their funds as possible. Well, that kind of rubs up against a different sort of interest for baseball owners. You know, Ben is right to point out that it is not as if baseball owners are indifferent to profit, right? We have spent much of the last couple of years having to grapple with the profit motivations of baseball owners. So they are, you know, interested in making money, but they are also theoretically at least interested in other things like winning baseball games and winning a world series. And there is a potential for conflict between the interests of, um, you know, civic civicminded is maybe a high-falutin way of describing what

baseball owners want to do, but ownership groups that are profit-interested but not exclusively versus those who are not only interested but required to maximize profit. And so in a world where we are already concerned about how much money owners are willing to invest in their rosters, for example, this seems like it might set up additional very bad incentives for the way that teams construct their rosters, spend money, how much they are willing to spend for marginal gains and wins that might end up resulting in a world series, but might not be immediate profit maximizing moves. So it is the sort of thing where there's a lot of detail here that we don't yet know because baseball has not announced this or described the way in which the ownership rules are changing in great detail, but it is not difficult to, after making some educated

guesses about what it might mean, be a little bit nervous about the direction that it is going to take baseball ownership groups and therefore our enjoyment of baseball. Because as fans, you know, despite the way that some people defend, you know, efficiency moves by ownership, like presumably you just care about your favorite team winning baseball games and hopefully winning a World Series. And this sets up an entirely different and well codified sort of set of incentives within ownership that might run counter to that. So yeah, I don't know. Do you feel like you need to say bonds at the end? Did I do an okay job? I think so. Yeah. So right. So it would be bad if teams, say, had to justify to shareholders why they want to sign a free agent, let's say. You'd have to show if we sign this free agent, it will pay off in these days, that's not always the case because you can just kind of rest on your laurels and make money because of all the revenue sharing and the TV money and all the income that owners are getting

even before the games start and before fans start showing up. So that would be bad. And I guess you could say maybe the Braves have already operated in a way sort of similar to this because they're owned by Liberty Media. And the Blue Jays to a certain extent too, right, with Rodgers. Right. And the Braves have been competitive, so it's not like you can't field a good team,

although they have been criticized at times for not spending as much as they could have. But yeah, I think it's possible that this will mean nothing, that nothing will change, and there won't be any negative consequences of this, as Ben points out, if it really is limited to just minority owners and they don't have a big enough stake that this could actually sway the way that the controlling

owners operate, then this won't really matter. And maybe some rich people will get richer, but other than that, it won't affect the fan experience, but it's possible that you could have like a 49% minority owner here that gets some sort of conditions where the majority owner would agree to, I don't know, make some decisions subject to the minority owner or something like that. And then you could get a situation where, yeah, you just get kind of anti-competitive practices. So I don't know if there's an upside for fans, but there is a downside for fans, I guess, is the way to think about it. Right. And Ben points out that one potential benefit to this is if you have, and he just named them because they're one of the largest pension funds in the world,

but if you have CalPERS, which is the pension fund for California's state employees invested in, you know, the Dodgers, well, they are going to have access to the Dodgers books. And again, I'm not calling them out for any particular reason, but just because they're in the state of California and have been active in the international market. So if, you know, if CalPERS gets access to the books of a baseball team that they invest in, they might, for instance, have something to say about some of the industry's more dubious player acquisition methods, especially when it comes to the international market. So maybe there is some oversight there, but Ben is also quick to point out, and I think

there are too many Bens. As an aside, one of you should change your name. It's very confusing to people, but I think that he is also right to point out that if what you want is regulation that mandates behavior that is in the best interest of the game, you actually need regulation to do that. You don't want to just rely on incentives. So that might be an upshot of something like this. But really, if that's the goal of baseball, they should just make rules that make it that way. Yeah, there was a commenter. Sometimes I read the comments, not just on my own articles, but also on other people's articles. And there is a commenter on this article who said there may be a potential upside, which is that this change could conceivably allow the cities where the teams are located to invest in the teams as minority owners. Cities could also demand a minorityivably acquire majority ownership Via an investment fund city

Ownership of a team has worked well for Green Bay and the Packers Joan Croc did try to give the Padres to the city of San Diego only to be blocked by the other Owners and might have actually succeeded If these types of investors were allowed Back in the 80s no idea Whether that could realistically happen

Or what the implications would be But maybe that's something. Maybe cities could get a stake in the teams. I don't know. Sounds like it could possibly be good. Maybe. But I also think we're counting on ownership, interest in baseball resulting in good stuff.

That seems like a dubious bit of optimism. Probably, yes. Speaking of which, I guess that leads us to our next bit of complex, confusing, but potentially significant baseball news, which is that a major minor league shakeup could be in the offing here after 2020. So there was reporting by J.J. Cooper of Baseball America and David Waldstein of The Times, among others, of some really significant discussions that are underway here that could totally shake up the way that the minors have been organized for the past 50 or 60 years. This would be like the most significant reorganization of the minors in most of our lifetimes. And I'll just I'll try to summarize what could possibly happen here. There are many implications and it's hard to wrestle with it all. And this will maybe just be a quick overview. And there will be people writing about this for fan graphs. And maybe we will do a segment about this at some point. It's a long offseason and there's no baseball. So this would be a good thing to talk about then. But basically, and I'm cribbing heavily from JJ's report at Baseball America here, which I will link to. is a preliminary proposal MLB has offered to reduce its number of player development contracts, the affiliation agreement by which MLB teams provide players and staff to minor league teams,

from 160 to 120. So this would be a big cutback in the number of minor league teams. He continues, that reduction would completely eliminate the four non-complex rookie level and short season classifications from the minor leagues. The proposal also completely reorganizes the full season minor leagues. While there would still be AAA, AA, high class A, and low class A, those four levels would be completely reworked to make the leagues much more geographically compact. In AAA, the Pacific Coast League would be shifted from 14 teams to 10. The International League would grow to 20 teams. The 14-team low-class A South Atlantic League would be turned into a 16-league with a new Mid-Atlantic League springing up,

et cetera, et cetera. So there would be a lot fewer teams. The leagues would be geographically reorganized. There would be longer contracts between Major League and Minor League teams that are not already owned by major league teams. So that right now you get that kind of musical chairs every couple of years where teams have to lock in their affiliates. And sometimes they get stuck with affiliates that are very far away or that maybe have some suboptimal conditions.

And so this would make those relationships more long-lasting. And I guess the MLB justification from this, I will read this statement in JJ's article from MLB Deputy Commissioner Dan Halem, who says, stage of the negotiations where each side is presenting to others the issues and concerns they have with the existing PBA. That's the professional baseball agreement between major league baseball and minor league teams, which expires at the end of next season. And there's been some version of that for more than a century now. But Halem says, from the perspective of MLB clubs, our principal goals are upgrading the minor

league facilities that we believe have inadequate standards for potential mlb players improving the working conditions for minor league players including their compensation improving transportation and hotel accommodations providing better geographic affiliations between major league clubs and their affiliates as well as better geographic lineups of leagues to reduce player travel, which makes it sound great. It makes it sound like we're doing away with the bad facilities that have inferior conditions, and we're going to pay minor league players more, and they'll have better working conditions, and they won't have to travel as much, and teams will be closer to their parent clubs. Sounds like a win-win for everyone, except, as usual, there are other considerations here. Can't always take the league and the owners at their word when they tell you that something that they want will be good for everyone. Generally not the case.

So one thing that could happen here is that, yes, maybe they would increase the compensation for minor league players, that yes, maybe they would increase the compensation for minor league players, but probably part of the reason that they would be willing to do that is that there would be a lot fewer minor league players, so they could save a lot of money this way. There would be hundreds fewer minor league players because there would be 40 fewer teams. And so that, I guess, you could quibble with whether that's a good thing or a bad thing, I guess. I mean, most minor leaguers do not become major leaguers, and I guess you could argue somewhat harshly that they'd be better served doing something else with those years of their lives and getting a head start in whatever their eventual career would be. But this isn't like MLB saying, yes, we will voluntarily offer to pay more

money to minor leaguers out of the goodness of our hearts. It's like, we will pay more money to minor leaguers because there won't be as many minor leaguers. And maybe also we will shift some of the cost to minor league baseball itself. So there's that. And then there's also the fact that because they would be eliminating all these minor league teams and also standardizing how many teams and players each organization could have under its control, so you wouldn't be able to have one organization that had more minor league teams. Like JJ mentions in this article that the Yankees have eight minor league affiliates right now, which means they can have as many as 285 players under contract. That's eight domestic minor league affiliates. Under this proposal, they would have to drop as many as 135 players because they wouldn't be able to have as many teams. So there aren't as big differences between how many affiliates each organization has as there used to be, but still that would be standardized. And then the other big thing that

would come out of this, it just goes on and on because you would be eliminating all of these minor league teams. There would be a replacement, which would be called the Dream League, which sounds like a euphemistic way to put it. But you're cutting out these 40, 42 teams. So MLB suggests setting up the Dream League. So as part of this, JJ says MLB would move the draft back to August, would reduce the draft to 20 to 25 rounds instead of 40 because you wouldn't have anywhere to put those players if you drafted them. And then the players who went undrafted would have the option of playing in the Dream League or going to IndieBall. But this basically sounds like it would be IndieBall, except that it would be a joint MLB minor league baseball venture, but it would be kind of a quasi

independent league where teams would just have rosters of undrafted players. And I guess those are the major implications here, but there is a lot to digest about this report. And we don't know whether this will end up happening, but it sounds like some sort of serious shakeup will probably come to pass. sort of serious shakeup will probably come to pass. I think that it's one of those things where you can, and obviously there are a lot of moving pieces here and there are parts of this. I think that many informed prospect observers would tell you that there is work to be done in the minors in terms of how teams are aligned with their affiliates, how many levels are really necessary, that there is work to be done there. That consideration is separate and apart from the fact that if what, with the existing structure of the minors, they could pay all the players. They could pay all the players a living wage. It would be fine. Not bankrupt baseball. They can afford to do it. So I think that people are right to have their sort of spidey sense tingle when this thing that

could be done at relatively low cost tomorrow is commingled with this other probably necessary, but perhaps not as drastic set of proposals to sort of rework the way that the minors are structured. And I think that a thing that is getting lost in this discussion and that it is good to keep in mind, now granted this is not going to be the thing that ends up determining what major league teams do with their minor league affiliates, but minor league baseball is the way that a lot of people watch baseball live. Yes, right. like baseball is the way that a lot of people watch baseball live. Yes. Right. Right. Like it is the way that a lot of people, especially in rural areas are able to see live baseball that is remotely associated with the majors. And so I think that, you know, if you go to,

so like one of the things that JJ notes in this piece, which again, like I agree with you, everyone should read is that, you know, the Northwest League would go from being a short season league to a full season league. If you go to games in the Northwest League, like those fans are fans of the teams that they are watching. Yeah. Right. Like they, like if you go to an Aqua Sox game, I've gone to Aqua Sox games up inant experience. You know, they know all the guys who have gone through that team, you know, whether they're on the Mariners big league roster or have been shipped out to another organization or what have you, like they, they know those guys, sometimes those guys have, you know, stayed in their homes. So I think that while there is absolutely some work to be done and it would, you know, it would be nice if every major league team's AAA affiliate were as close

to their major league city as say Tacoma is to Seattle, and we could rework some of this stuff and we can acknowledge that the vast majority of players who go through the minor leagues will never play major league baseball, there's still value to the stuff that they do both for them as players, for the orgs they play for, and for the communities that their teams are situated in. And so I just, I hope that one, we do not lose sight of the fact that the cost considerations for paying minor leaguers a living wage could just be sorted today if teams really wanted to. They do not need to reorganize the way minor league baseball has been played for 60 years to do that. So that just because a guy isn't going to make the majors doesn't mean that he doesn't have an impact on the organization he plays for that's important. Because if you only staffed those teams with guys who are definitely going to make the major leagues, the minors would be a lot smaller than even this proposal. So there's still important developmental value. And if you pay all those guys in a reasonable way, it's not exploitative that they never make it to the majors.

They know that that's part of the gamble, but they're at least making money in a way that allows them to support themselves and their families along the way. So I think that, you know, we should not. This is very complicated and we shouldn't pass judgment on it right away. But my spidey sense is tingling. Yeah. Yes, very much so. It's like, hey, that seems, I don't know, seems sort of like the minority ownership stake stuff.

It's like this could be fine. But when was the last time things worked out? When did that happen? Never. And as JJ says here, MLB teams are responsible for paying for the salaries and benefits of players and coaches on all affiliated minor league teams, while minor league teams pay for the minor league staff travel and other expenses. So, yeah, it could very well be a cost-cutting move. an article earlier this year for FiveThirtyEight that basically made the case that from a player development standpoint, the minor leagues are somewhat inefficient because you do have a whole

lot of players and most of them never make the majors and you could maybe consolidate the minors and just have the really most talented guys play against each other, and maybe they would get good even faster, although you certainly do get a lot of supposed non-prospects who end up making the majors. That is a big part of the book that we wrote together. But I think that kind of presumes that we should be trying to make the minors more efficient, or that the only goal and benefit of the minors is that it produces the major league players, which is certainly a benefit. But I think arguably the biggest benefit is that a lot of people get to watch baseball and enjoy baseball and get hooked on baseball through minor league baseball. And major league baseball's attendance was down this

year. Minor league baseball's attendance was actually up. And if you took away baseball from a large percentage of the places where it is currently played, at least in an affiliated way, then yeah, I would worry about people in those towns who now don't have easy access to baseball and maybe don't get exposed to it and don't go on to be big league fans. And, you know, 68 million people went to regular season MLB games this year. 41 million went to minor league games in a shorter season. So it's an entertainment product. The point is to entertain people and perhaps to distract them from death, as Sam would say. So the minor leagues distracted 41 million people from death this year. That's a good reason to keep them going. Minor league baseball can just be like a nice thing for the local community too and just a nice way to socialize and enjoy a summer evening. So it doesn't necessarily need to have any public good beyond that. That's pretty good. And also, I think a lot of those local towns and cities have chipped in to pay for the facilities. We've done episodes on that in the past. And so it would be even worse if after kind of squeezing them for money to pay for those ballparks, then you take the affiliates away. That would be also bad.

So, yeah, less baseball. That would be also bad. So, yeah, less baseball. Generally, I'm of the opinion that less baseball is bad and fewer baseball players probably also bad. So even if this didn't really make any major impact on the big leagues, on the baseball that we typically consume, I still don't know. I'm far more interested in having more baseball being played than I am in major league owners getting to save some money on to, I don't mean to conflate or say that it's all equal. The biggest difference arguably between teams right now is how well or poorly they're doing player dev. or poorly they're doing player dev. So I don't mean to say that it's all the same. And I also think that there are many independent shops that are helping players outside of the affiliated system to refine their swings and help them develop new pitches.

And there are many shops that are doing good work. So I'm gonna preface what I'm about to say with both of those statements. I remain skeptical, like very skeptical, that a private non-affiliated baseball player dev system couldn't sufficiently support the work that needs to be very careful about the effect that dramatically reducing the minor leagues will have on player development, even if there is work that can be done and probably needs to be done to make that system operate in a way that helps better prepare minor leaguers for the majors. So I think that we should, you know, like there are a lot of shops that are doing good work that's rigorous and is really helping to get guys ready and advance their

careers and put them in a position to succeed. It also seems like there is a ton of potential for grift and nonsense in that system, which is not to say that like all of the interests are, um, always terrific and wonderful for, uh, baseball teams, but they are trying to do a different sort of thing. So I just think that we should all be mindful of some of the, um, potential negative consequences of the, these kinds of reorgs and be very cautious and thoughtful and have at the base, like at its core, what we should want them to be about is helping guys develop in a way that gets them ready to play major league baseball, because that's a whole point, and also allows fans as many opportunities to go and sit in a place where they can hear ballpark sounds and

see guys live. I think that those are the things that we as analysts want to help prioritize when we're talking about this stuff, because I don't candidly care even one little tiny bit if the, I don't know, I'll just pick, I've already talked about the Aqua Sox. If the Mariners have to pay a couple dudes 60 grand a year to play baseball that will never matter to them because they won't have a major league career, I don't care. I don't care about that. We don't have to care because it's not my money. So I'm happy to spend other people's. So there you go. Yeah. Agreed. All right. So this is just an initial proposal and perhaps it's just like a hard line way to open negotiations and there will be

some sort of compromise and we'll discuss this as the story develops. There's some time before this will actually happen, but somewhat big news. So we wanted to mention it when it was fresh. So we are close to the end here. I guess I'll just take an email because I have it here. This is from Matthew, one of our Patreon supporters. He says, and we didn't really talk about the Cardinals much when they were eliminated because it just all happened so fast. So Matthew says, should the Cardinals and their fans view their season as a success? On the one hand, they made it back to the playoffs and took the division back from the Cubs and even made it to the NLCS.

On the other hand, the way they lost the NLCS, the offense looks decidedly mediocre and both big trades to address that. Ozuna and Goldschmidt have not panned out as planned. There's an arguably bright future ahead built around Flaherty, but the Cardinals can't love any of the guys they're tied long-term to, Carpenter especially at this point, but also Fowler and, to a lesser extent, Goldschmidt. Carlos Martinez went from a bargain ace to another volatile reliever. Thoughts? Should the Cardinals be happy? Should their fans be satisfied once the immediate stinging of the sweep wears off?

Well, I'm going to do that thing I do where I say, I don't want to tell anyone how to feel. And then I spend like five minutes telling other people how to feel. It's one of my favorite things to do. I would be, if I were a Cardinals fan, I would be quite pleased with this season for a couple of reasons. The first of which is that many people saw them as a team that was going to be on the outside looking in on October baseball. So they've exceeded expectations there. I would be excited because while their farm system does have some work to do, I think we currently have them like 19th or 20th in our farm system rankings. They

do have some prospects that are quite exciting. You should get hype for Nolan Gorman. And I think that it probably helps to, a season like this probably helps them clarify in a way that is important where some of their deficiencies are that they're going to have to address. And so I, if I were a Cardinals fan, I'd be like, Hey, you know what? We, we exceeded expectations. We know what we need to do to do better, whether they'll do it that you can get, you can get kind of upset and shirty about if you care to, because we're going to have to wait and see, but I don't know. I would be, I would be excited if it were me. I mean, I'm a Mariners fan. So I'm like, hey, man, if the Mariners make the wild card, I'm going to be

insufferable for like a day because then they'll probably lose. But for that day, man, I'm going to be the worst. So I would be excited. You got to watch a team round into form. You got to watch an exciting race to a division title. You got to see Jack Flaherty just be amazing in the second half. You can get excited about that. You got to see Wainwright go out on a high note, even though they lost those games. He pitched well. He was dignified, right?

He got to do it. Yep. So I would look at all of that and say, hey, we didn't make it to the big show, but you even lost to a team. You can feel good about advancing. Yeah, that's right. You get to say, you know, it's their year. Let them have some shine, some magic.

It's not even devil magic seems great i would be i would be amped but if you're sad that's okay too because baseball as i've said repeatedly is a low stakes way to feel sad so if this is the way you need to like experience that part of your emotional range i think that's defensible also but i would invite cardinals fans to be happy i'd invite them to be happy if they say no that's fine too also, but I would invite Cardinals fans to be happy. I'd invite them to be happy. If they say no, that's fine too. I think so too.

Yeah, they had a pretty successful season. Yeah. I think I picked them as a wildcard team coming into the season. I did too. But there was so much uncertainty in that division, and that could have gone four different ways, five different ways it looked like at various points. So for them to emerge at the top of that heap and to beat the Cubs and to, I think, establish some young players and have young players make strides.

And as Matthew notes, there's some age on the roster. There's some downside risk, but they, I think, look pretty good going forward. Not like a super team. They're not one of the super teams. So if that's your standard that they're not the Astros or the Dodgers or something, then yeah. But I think by the standards of most other teams, they did quite well. They ended an interminable, what, three-year playoff drought that's the only that's the only thing i have no sympathy for with cardinals fans like we've had a hard time i was like call me when your playoff drought can drive right yeah my play out my playoff drought is getting ready to apply to college we're

worried about its sats yeah they got all the way down to 83 wins it was tough times for the Cardinals. But yeah, they're always competitive. They keep churning out productive young players, often people who are not super highly rated, but end up being productive players anyway. And they're always right there. And they made the NLCS. And yeah, things went south pretty quickly after that. But got there so i would say it's a success and there's a lot to be pleased about yeah you look at that team and you're like it must be wild to have a guy to have a reputation for a particular kind of player development align and work out as as often and as closely as it does because like i you know i am not the the closest draft observer but i remember when the cardinals drafted tommy and you sat there and you're like, they're going to turn this little sprite of a guy into a major leaguer and he's going to be good. And then they did it. That has to be wild. I can't describe, I have no idea how that would feel because I have been hurt many times. And so my reaction to prospects is,

I wonder how the Mariners could have messed up Mike Trout. I wonder how they could have botched that. And he seems like he should be. I'm going to do a bad swear. I'm going to do a bad one. And if you want Dylan to edit it, you can. Mike Trout seems like he is the most unfuck-uppable guy to ever play baseball. And I sit there and I'm like, 50-50.

And meanwhile, they're drafting Tom Edmund. You're like, he's going to be a star. He's great. All right. I had one more on here. Should we just do it? Sure. Playoff related.

All right. This is from Alex. He says, if baseball were different, how different would it be if only a maximum of five of the previous year's playoff teams could return the following year? If more than five of the previous year's teams would otherwise qualify for the playoffs, only the five with the best record could enter. Would this decrease the number of super teams? Could it cut down on teams doing long-term rebuilds or tanking since they can't count on being the most dominant team for several years in a row?

I love this idea. It's so mean, but it's so great. Very cruel. It's so mean, but in like a really productive way. I imagine that it would incentivize teams to just really try to win, right? You would really want to win. You can't wildcard your way into that one. You got to be great. It would incentivize teams to be really good, I guess,

but also disincentivize them to be good, pretty good. Yeah, I guess that's true. I don't know. I mean, I like the idea of turnover and parity and new teams being in the playoffs each year. So I think we should do what we can to encourage that. And I think baseball is in a pretty decent place when it comes to that. But this would, yeah, I'm trying to, I mean, I like the idea that if you were kind of in the middle tier, the idea that if you were kind of in the middle tier,

you would maybe really have to go hard because you want to be the 100-win team, not the 93-win team, because then you might end up on the outside looking out. But then what if you're like the 89-win team or like the 85-win team? And it's like, well, and you made the playoffs last year. So now it's like, well, do I even go for it? Because I'd have to be like way, way better to guarantee myself a spot and how it would be really cruel. Just like you, you win 96 games like this year. I'm trying to think of like, would anyone have like, if you only take the top five let's see so how would this have affected this year's playoff yeah if at all so let's look at the yankees were in the

playoffs last year the astros were in the playoffs last year the dodgers were in the playoffs last year so those were all repeats but they were also all really good so they would have been in there safe yeah the twins were new and fresh they would have been, so they would have been in there. Been safe, yeah. The twins were new and fresh. They would have made it. They would have been in. The Rays would have been in because they were new, I guess, right? Was it last year that the twins played in a – wait, I'm getting my – no. Right, it was A's.

Right, okay. Yeah, so the A's would be a good example, right? Because they were a wildcard team in both years. They won 97 this year. So were they one of the top five returners? Let's see. Okay. Because the Nationals didn't make it last year either. No. The Brewers did. I guess the way we want to look at this is by league. So I think the A's would have made it because they had the fourth best record among the returning playoff teams. Right. The Rays were new, so they would have been fine.

So the Braves had the fifth best record among returning playing playoff teams so they would have been in but and the cardinals were not in last year so they would have been in however i think the brewers would have been yeah brewers would have been excluded oh man so imagine if they had that run to end the year without yeltsin they were winning every game and then it's like congratulations guys see that's very mean and then I guess what the the well but wait so is the is it by league or in all of it has to be by league right uh well he doesn't specify that because in that case in that case the Brewers would be in even as returners because they want 89 right and so yeah he doesn't say it's by league, but then you maybe run into issues. Well, yeah, he says if more than five of the previous year's teams

would otherwise qualify, then only the five with the best record could enter. Oh, boy. So, yeah, the Brewers would have been out, I guess. So then do we put in the 86-win Mets? Were they the runners-up for the second wildcard spot? Or were the Mets or the Phillies who actually finished? It was the Mets, I think, because they had 86 wins. So in the

NL, it went Dodgers, Braves, Nationals, Cards, Brewers, Mets, Diamondbacks. Alright, so yeah, it would have been, sorry Brewers, but you made it last year. Mets, you're in. Oh man, if the Mets got in on technicality, that would be such good that's

such good tv good content yeah oh man oh i like it it's so mean to brewers fans though august would be crying i don't know if he would cry but he would be sad and the poor brewer like they're the team that we've sort of held out as the example of like hey they went out and they they traded for yelic and they signed Kane and they signed Grindahl. And so if the upshot of that was that they did not make the playoffs because they snuck in two years in a row and like, they're not the team that you want to keep out. That's the other thing is like, if you do this, you're doing it to prevent the same teams being there year after year, I think. And so like, if you're sick of the Dodgers, teams being there year after year i think and so like

like if you're sick of the dodgers it's like all right you've won seven consecutive division titles that's enough dodgers let's get some new blood in here fine but you're not actually targeting the dodgers here because the dodgers are great and they would have been in any way so you're what you're doing really is just hurting the sixth best team. So maybe I take it all back. Yeah. So if you said the best two teams don't get to come back, but then it's like we just built a super team,

and now we don't get anything for it. Oh, maybe I take it all back then. I do wish that we could maybe we would never do this because the history is so exciting. And what do you do with those guys careers and blah, we never could. But sometimes I wish that we could take like a three year break from it counting and just try a bunch of weird stuff with the postseason and say like, we get it. This is going to result in some nonsense. So, you know, don't get fussed about that. But we're going to try this thing and that thing. We're not going to do it. This is why they do all the testing in the minors. But I would like to set out at the beginning of a year with very specific playoff goals

in mind, like as a league. Like this year is the year where our goal is to design a system where Mike Trout plays in October. That's the goal. And we could get there a lot of different ways, right? Maybe, you know, you can do the drafting thing off teams that have been eliminated. But I wish we could do that.

I know why we can't, and it's fine, but I wish we could. Like this is the year where we're designing a system specifically to get the Marlins in the playoffs. That's what we're doing. What would that take? I don't know. I think you just have to say the Marlins are making the playoffs. Yeah.

Spoiler, we've decided that they are the second wildcard team in the NL. We don't know why, just because Meg is trying a thing. The teams with the worst records make the playoffs this year. Right. It's a bizarro world. Yeah, a bizarro world where the worst record teams are the second wildcard because Meg's trying something new and it was this or get bangs, and goodness knows that would be a mistake.

So here we go. All right. Yeah, okay. I'm against it. I say don't penalize teams for success, but do try to encourage conditions where new teams can succeed. And it's not the same teams every year. Yeah. Yeah.

I guess how we're not calling this emailer mean. We're calling a system he designed mean, but not on purpose. I'm sure he wasn't trying to be mean, but it being mean should probably have been our first indicator that it was a mistake. Yeah, we try not to be mean for the most part. For the most part. All right. What do you think of these survey results, by the way? I don't know if you got this email from Seton Hall University.

I did not. This was sent a couple weeks ago, but I think the survey was actually conducted in April. I don't know why the press release came when it did, but this was about how many fans say they would be less interested in baseball if the home runs decrease. So this was circulated before it became clear that the home runs had in fact decreased. But according to this poll, which was conducted among 714 adult Americans across the country, either on landline or cell phone with a margin of error of plus or minus 3.8%, according to these respondents, only 6% said their interest in baseball would decline if Rob Manfred were to go ahead and reduce home runs somehow.

And 85% said that they would maintain their interest in the game at current levels, so they would not be affected by the decrease in home run rate. 6% said it would decrease, and 3% said it would increase. So basically, people were just like, eh, I don't care. I'm going to be just as interested in baseball regardless of the home run rate. That doesn't surprise me. That seems consistent with what I would expect. I would like to know as follow-up questions how clear their memory of, say, 2014 baseball is, is the most recent noticeably down offensive year. Because I think that that would

just be interesting to note because I think our memory of this stuff tends to get a little hazy and we were very agitated about the run environment in 2014 and I think we're right too so but yeah that seems that seems about right I think that people like baseball for a lot of things that don't have to do with home runs so yeah yeah yeah I think in general, attendance has correlated pretty well with scoring and offense over time, but it's hard to say that that's necessarily a causative thing. There are other things going on there. Like in 2014, I assume attendance was probably better than it was this year, right? Because attendance keeps decreasing bit by bit

and there are other things going on there. It's not because of home runs one way or another, probably better than it was this year, right? Because attendance keeps decreasing bit by bit. And there are other things going on there. It's not because of home runs one way or another, really. But I'm saying that people were still pretty interested about baseball in 2014, too, even though we were all kind of worrying about what it would look like or what it did look like. So maybe the lesson is that we just fuss too much about these things. I don't know. But because ultimately, we're going to keep watching. I think the reason that we've been all up in arms about this postseason change to the 2019 regular season baseball, but we don't like going from one to the other without any warning in the middle of a season. We don't like that. So it's not so much where the level is as it is how it changes and

how suddenly it changes. And I think that's the more important thing to me. Yeah, I would prefer that there be transparency about the process around it. I would very much prefer that the general tone with which the lead communicates information about it not seem to assume that we are all a little bit dumb, which it seems to sometimes. And I resent that strongly because we're all doing great but yeah i think that i could stand there being fewer home runs i mostly just wish that we could feel confident that the home runs that we are seeing are largely a result of the talent of the guys on the field and if there are changes in that rate i would rather them be driven by some evolution in the way that the guys are playing the game,

whether on the hitting side or the pitching side, because those ones are fun and they're the most fun to talk about, which is not to say that I have not enjoyed reacquainting myself with physics in the last little bit. That's a fun thing to do. acquainting myself with physics in the last little bit. That's a fun thing to do. And Rob has done a great job of kind of guiding us along that path and Jay supplemented it well. But I'd just rather talk about the guys playing baseball than the baseball itself. So anytime baseball as an institution would like to afford us that opportunity more often, I think that'd be good. Yeah. And I'm guessing that the respondents to this poll probably have not spent as much time considering the implications of a change ball and the lowered home run rate and what effect that

would have on scoring and play in general. As we were talking with Rob on the last episode about if you just suddenly take away the home runs and everything else stays the same, then you might get a precipitous decline in scoring and all the strikeouts, but none of the scoring. And John Rogley, who sometimes writes for Fangraphs and the Hardball Times and does a lot of strike zone analysis, he had a thread, which I will link to earlier this month, where he found that the strike zone was actually at its biggest in the PitchFX era this year, and that the downward movement and expansion of the zone, which had been proceeding that way for a few years but then had stopped or slowed or even reversed itself a little, that really went in that direction again this year

so that the zone got lower, and that may conform to the rulebook zone like the the old lefty strike that we used to talk about the strike off the plate particularly to left-handed hitters that's been cut back a lot that's been all but eliminated but the zone is much bigger top to bottom now and maybe that's because umpires are getting graded on the rulebook zone maybe it's because they're trying to give pitchers a way to counter the home run rate. I don't know, but the zone's getting bigger, so strikeouts are getting higher. And if you take the ball away, there will be some nasty side effects of that. So I don't know how much, if you just ask people, would you like baseball if there were fewer home runs, they might say-

Right, they're not thinking about that part. Right. If they actually see it, I don't know. Anyway, in conclusion, sign up for Patreon. Come see us on November 21st in New York. Come hear us in the next week on our Patreon exclusive live streams. And we will be back next week to talk about the World Series. Sounds good. Hope you're feeling better by then. Me too.

All right. That will do it for today and for this week thank you for listening and if you'd like to take our advice and sign up for patreon you can do so by going to patreon.com slash effectively wild the following five listeners have already signed up to pledge some small monthly amount to help keep the podcast going aaron danielson chuck phillips gordon kristen nick sievers and tim wolf thanks to all of you you can join our facebook group Aaron Danielson, Chuck Phillips, Gordon Christen, Nick Seavers, and Tim Wolfe. Thanks to all of you. You can join our Facebook group at facebook.com slash group slash effectively wild.

You can rate, review, and subscribe to Effectively Wild on iTunes and other podcast platforms. And you can keep your questions and comments for me and Meg and Sam coming via email at podcast at fangraphs.com or via this special Patreon messaging system if you are a special Patreon supporter. Thanks to Dylan Higgins for his editing assistance. You can buy my book, The MVP Machine, How Baseball's New Nonconformists Are Using Data to Build Better Players. Your reviews and ratings for the book are appreciated, and we will be back with another episode early next week. Have a nice weekend, and we will talk to you then. Outro Music