Effectively Wild: A FanGraphs Baseball Podcast - Effectively Wild Episode 1752: Photo Finish

Episode Date: September 28, 2021

Ben Lindbergh and Meg Rowley banter about Giancarlo Stanton’s awe-inspiring weekend at Fenway, the most aesthetically pleasing home run hitters, what the Cardinals’ 16-game winning streak portends (or doesn’t portend) for their playoff hopes, and the last week in the remaining playoff races. Then (26:32) they bring on Patreon supporter Dylan Buell to talk about […]

I got so high, baby, forgive me, or don't, I don't mind. I got so high, baby, believe me, or don't, I don't mind. But we've been on top of the dome. Hello and welcome to episode 1752 of Effectively Wild, a Fangraphs baseball podcast brought to you by our Patreon supporters. I'm Meg Rowley of Fangraphs, and I am joined as always by Ben Lindberg of The Ringer. Ben, how are you? I am still marveling at the strength of Giancarlo Stanton, who really powered the Yankees sweep at Fenway this weekend and just made my jaw drop a couple times, which he will do more than just about any other major league player for that specific aspect of his game because he hits home runs that really no one else

can hit and they don't look like anyone else's home runs so this weekend in boston he hit three he hit one in each game he drove in 10 runs he was just an absolute monster and two of those homers left the park entirely just went onto landstown street over the monster the one on saturday was the biggest blow both in terms of the prodigiousness of the blast itself and also in terms of how it swung the win probability and playoff expectancy and all of those things. That was just a huge homer, but it just went so far. And the Dennis Eckersley reaction to it on the Nessun broadcast was great

because he was just like, oh, it was just like off the bat, like the second it left the bat. And he's on the Red Sox broadcast. He's just like, oh, and that's really the only appropriate reaction to some of his homers, which just seem to defy physics. Like I have written entire articles or blogs or whatever you want to call them on John Carlos Stitt and home runs, just like explaining the physics of them or attempting to because he hits them on trajectories that no one else is really strong enough to hit them at and get the ball over the fence. It's just awe-inspiring sometimes. Yeah, I don't really know quite how to describe it. It's, yeah, I don't really know quite how to describe it.

It's rare that you have someone who satisfies exactly what you imagine their strength would bear, right? Like there are guys who, you know, like think about Yandy Diaz, right? Yandy Diaz looks like a guy who should only hit home runs. He's got those big arms and it's like that is a big strong man. And he does hit the occasional long ball, but he also is a good ground ball hitter. And it's just confusing to look at him and understand what his ball profile has been at points over his career. And then you look at Stanton and you're like,

if you can't send one out of Fenway, what is your purpose here? Why do you exist? And I can't imagine what it would feel like to just have an 80-grade tool, right? Like, I'm good at parts of my job. I don't mean this in, like, a self-effacing sort of way. I'm not asking for compliments.

But, like, he is an 80. He has real, true 80-grade power. And I just wonder what it would feel like to know that you can do that to a baseball. Not only to, because it's just, see, the thing is, you have, first you have to make contact with it. That would be the hardest part for me, right? Like, forget how far I send it. It's hard for him sometimes, too. He has his moments. This is true.

But it's like, you make contact. And then to be able to send it out of a building seems like it would be satisfying. I think you'd feel good about yourself. You'd be like, I'm a special person. It looks like he's enjoying it from what I can tell. And yeah, it's not even the ones that go the farthest or the highest with him that impressed me the most, although those are impressive. But in a way, it's the ones that don't look like they're going to get out.

And then they just keep going the one he hit on friday was in theory the least impressive it didn't go as far it wasn't hit as hard but it kind of shocked me that it actually left because off the bat i thought oh that's in the gap maybe and maybe it's partly that it was Fenway but it was also that it was like an 18 degree launch angle and it just kept going and even more than that I just sent you a highlight of the homer he hit just before the Fenway series on September 21st against the Rangers at home against poor Dane Dunning he threw this ball that Stanton off the bat I would have sworn that was just like a double down the line. And it was not. And I watched it like 10 times and it's like an optical illusion because

it was hit at a 17 degree launch ankle, which is not the lowest, but close to the lowest. It's very low, but he hit it 118 and a half miles per hour. And sometimes it's like a cliche like oh that ball was still rising when it you know whatever this it literally like it was it was not falling that's for sure and i watched it so many times because like i've seen so many balls hit in yankee stadium and he knew it off the bat but i didn't know it maybe it looked a little different in person but just on the broadcast I'm like oh you better run John Carlos Stanton because that's gonna be just like a one hopper off the wall or something and no he was just striding because he knew and there was it was a no doubter but it didn't look like a no doubter he just he makes almost everything look like a no doubter

it's kind of incredible I feel like um I feel like Nelson Cruz home runs are like that too, where it starts in this low trajectory and then it just keeps rising. I mean, they're not all like that. Sometimes he lays into one and you're like, holy shit. But sometimes it's like it just takes this delightful path out and he knows it's amazing.'re amazing yeah and the swing itself i i wouldn't say that stanton's swing is the most aesthetically pleasing it's more about just like the sheer apparently physics defying nature of it sometimes he'll just like hit one the other way

that you just think has no chance and there are times when he looks kind of helpless and maybe it is anecdotal that he is, I don't know, more streaky than the typical hitter, that he's more exploitable, but there have definitely been times when he came up and like, I just didn't really have great expectations for him. Like I just felt like, oh, they're going to get him out. Like they can just get him to chase at that ball in the dirt outside and he will just do it every time and there are times when he really does go cold and just doesn't look that great but when he is hot man and again I don't know if that is backed up by the data it's just purely an anecdotal observation but the fact that the Yankees are now in likely playoff position or looking in better playoff position is largely due to him and

to judge who have both been good as they often are but have been healthy more importantly and have just been on the field more right when those guys stay on the field and judge i mean he dislocated his pinky while he was on the field and they just popped it right back into place. Popped it back in. Just popped it back in. Yep. Yep. And Lindsay Adler tweeted that Stanton admitted that he does not feel sorry for the baseballs. I don't know if she asked him or someone else asked him, but anyone who's thought of that since our email episode hypothetical about sentient baseballs. Oh, no. I would not want to be one when John Carl Stanton is making contact, but he apparently

is not bothered by that. But I wanted to ask you, just prompted by my admiration for Stanton this weekend, who your favorite home run hitter of all time is, just in terms of- All time? Did you tell me it was all time? I don't know if I specified, but if you want to just do active, you can, if it's a different answer. Or if you want to name a few and don't want to pick one or whatever, I can go first if you want a little more time to think. think about it and then i'm gonna have a great answer and it's gonna be great and then i'm gonna tell you something ben i didn't think about it for one second more after that because i got distracted by a conference call so so why don't you go first and then i will come up with a

sparkling answer that everyone will find so impressive okay okay for me it's daryl strawberry i don't think daryl strawberry dingers can be beaten. And I got to see him at the tail end of his career with the Yankees, and he was still really impressive then, even with the substance abuse issues and having cancer and all kinds of health challenges. Like he was still raking at a pretty advanced age. But as I was thinking of this question just this week, I fell down a YouTube rabbit hole of Daryl Strawberry dingers, and I wish the rabbit hole went deeper. It doesn't go deep enough for my taste, but I was looking in the MLB vault, the film room, and scouring YouTube. I want more dingers by Daryl.

If you have one that is not currently available online, please let me know. I'm going to be like a deadhead who is like collecting tapes of obscure concerts that cannot otherwise be found. I want the Daryl dingers because like I would watch just every one if I could. And there are only like maybe 30 online, not even probably.

There are like 30 videos, but some of them are repeats. Yeah, which is a shame because it's not like it's ancient history, Daryl Strawberry, but you just can't find old videos. And I'd watch all 335 he hit, and that's not even counting the playoff ones. But something about it is just so soothing to me. And just it's like it's my ASMR, I think, is like Daryl Strawberry hitting home runs. And there are a couple he hit that are on YouTube in the 1986 playoffs, like NLCS Game 3 and then World Series Game 7. And I will link to those because they should just be appreciated.

And if we had exit velocities for that era, I'm sure he would be close to the top of the leaderboard because he hit him hard and he hit him a long way. leaderboard because he hit him hard and he hit him a long way. But also just that long looping and yet somehow speedy swing and just so much force behind it. And it's just beautiful. And his physique too. He's just this tall, skinny, wiry guy and really always was even late in his career. Some players, they get a little softer, a little puffier at that stage. And Daryl was always kind of wiry and strong, but sort of springy. And when he made contact, he would just launch them. And it's just a beautiful thing. Yeah, it does make you like there are the guys who can who like stanton you know a lot of it is just like pure brute force right like the strength present in the body is why they're able to get the ball to go so far and then there are guys where it's like well yeah they have to be strong but it's also a matter

of like bat speed and their ability to sort of get the barrel where it needs to be and so there's not that those swings are more complicated necessarily, but they are aesthetically different. And it can be, I like that there are both things. It's like incredible that we invented this sport and we did identify human beings who were good at playing it. And there are two types of, there are a couple of ways you can get there for that. And that's, I don't know, I just find that to be deeply cool.

Who's my favorite active? Who's your favorite active home run hitter? Man, I didn't even come up with an answer to that one. But I think there are some that are just, yeah, very violent. And that can be fun too, like a Sheffield or a Canseco or I don't know, someone, a lot of like steroid era guys probably where it's just like they are beating the snot out of the ball. And then there's some that it just looks graceful. You don't expect the ball to go as far as it does. And strawberry is kind of a blend of both of those, I think, where it looks very forceful and yet it is also very graceful. So that's why he's my favorite.

But I don't know. I guess he's kind of got the classic lefty sort of stroke, which Griffey obviously had to and Griffey homers were great. Yeah, I think that my inactive player answer just kind of has to be Griffey. I think it's so smooth, right right and he's got the he's got the drop and it's just everything about it is what word would i ascribe to it like there is a confidence to it that is just present right like and i don't say this to take anything away from bat flippers i love a good bat flip i i bat flips are great if that is the way

that you want to like express your joy when you've done this incredible thing that is super hard to do well that's that's fine you get to bat flip but there is something about the like understated nature of the of the drop that is just so stupidly confident yeah and it's funny because it gives you a really good out right the bat backdrop is a lot more it's a lot easier to disguise if you've been wrong right like you know if i've said this a couple of times like if i ever hit a home run i would i would be inclined to the drop because i would be convinced that i would pimp a home run that it was in no way and it would like die at the track and then i'd be embarrassed and i'd feel

so silly but so like the drop gives you a way out of that but it's still just imbued with this incredible confidence that's so cool so um he's probably like my my all-time guy but i don't know i i find myself as much as i said that like part of what makes stanton so incredibly like pleasing to watch and this is true of judge and it's true of gallo like the when the big guys make the ball go far you're like yeah big guy make ball go far and there's something satisfying about like him living up to what you think his body's potential like portends yeah but then but then sometimes you get you get skinny guys or you get little guys and those home runs are super fun because of the the difference like i don't want to say that javier baez is little because like he's not like little little but he's not like

he's not stanton right and he's an interesting mix because he's like a little guy who just has the obvious strength and power in that swing when he does connect, which granted he does not always do. But when he does, it's like, wow, he can hit some long and loud home runs. And then you have guys like, I've been enjoying the Kyle Tucker home run experience because he looks like Ichabod Crane. He looks like Ichabod Crane and he has 28 home runs. What's that about? Yeah, that's a good one. And I don't know.

I kind of like the Matt Olsen classic, just lefty slugger sort of stroke. So maybe him would be a decent one. But yeah, sometimes it's like very short and quick cut. Like one of my favorite homers is like the legendary Glenallen Hill 2000 homer on the Wrigley rooftop where you just can't believe it went that far because it's just a short, very quick to the ball kind of cut. But I guess it's being produced by a pretty massive body at that point. And so it really went far.

But sometimes that can be good too. If it doesn't look like it's going to go as far as it does. And then it does. And then you get the guys like. I noticed this when I was editing Ben Clemens' piece about Mike Zanino lately. And I, you know, like as a Mike Zanino enthusiast. This was not the first time that I had noticed this. But I was trying to find a like a little screen grab of Zananino so that I could use it as the feature image on the piece.

And he ends up hitting these home runs where he just is left to look. He looks like he's looking straight up. And then the ball goes all the way out of the ballpark. And so there is also something fun, sort of like Stanton or like that Vladimir Guerrero Jr. home run from a couple of weeks ago, it's like when they they come off the bat at a at an angle that seems to suggest that they are going to be a fly out and then actually know it is a home run or you think that it's going to be able to be fielded like on the field by an infielder and it's like no no that is not a line out to the third baseman that is a home run like those are super fun so i think that the variation that we have is important to the home run being a highlight i know that sam is not a

huge fan of home run highlights and i think that his argument is compelling but i do think that what can sort of tilt the scales back in the home runs favor is that there is just like a a real diversity of approaches and while they all end up going over the wall they do make you feel they make you feel different about how they do because sometimes you hear it and you're like oh my i mean stanton is one of the only people i've seen hit a ball out of what is now t-mobile which is a famously hard place to do that and you know we we tend to talk about the sound off the bat and sometimes i think we get a little precious about it but the sound that that ball made i was just like oh i think i've never

heard a sound quite like it in person that's incredible so uh yeah it's it's pretty amazing and stanton he's very still before he starts the swing i mean i know it really is and maybe that's part of why yeah i don't enjoy the swing part of it as much as what happens when he makes contact but he's like tapping the bat on his shoulder but just before he starts the swing he's basically just standing still and i do kind of like the ones where there's a little more rhythm like daryl like griffey where there's a little bit of a waggle like sheffield you know where it's just part of a continuous motion essentially so it almost looks like you know i don't know the ball just like wandered into the space where he was going to be swinging anyway

and just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time it's like get out of here yeah just swatting it away so Now I'm just watching Griffey highlights. I just have Griffey home runs going while we're talking here. It's like, oh, he just hit one. That was nice. That's such a pretty, what a swing. What a pretty swing. Lindsay, by the way, did ask John Carlos Stanton if he feels sorry for the baseballs.

It's just a really excellent question. That's journalism. So we are about to bring on an Effectively Wild listener and Patreon supporter, Dylan Buell, who has been one of our high roller Patreon supporters. And one of the perks associated with that is that you get to come on

an email show at some point. And today is Dylan's day. We have already recorded that as we speak, and we had fun. We have a perfect record thus far of Effectively Wild listeners who have come on the show being good guests and entertaining and fun to talk to. And Dylan is actually a sports photographer who photographs major league games among other sporting events. So we will discuss that and how that works before we even get to your emails and stat blast and just uh briefly we are now less than a week away from

the end of the regular season and because the cardinals do refuse to lose and are up to 16 straight now they have ended the NL wildcard Race essentially and That has roped off one avenue Of possible tiebreaker Madness but there's still Some intrigue left right you still Got the AL wildcard race Now with the Yankees on top

And the Red Sox trailing and then the Yankees And Blue Jays facing off this week The Yankees have been a real roller Coaster they win 13 straight Then they lose 11 of their next 13, then they win 11 of their next 15. So your guess is as good as mine. And then you also have another really pivotal series. Braves Phillies are also facing off. Phillies out of it pretty much in the wildcard race, but still just the two and a half back in the NL East race.

So in theory, they could close that gap going head to head. And then you've got Dodgers Giants still separated by two games as they always have been and always will be evidently, but that is still happening here. So there are definitely races that are coming down to the wire here. And I guess there's also some seeding stuff which is a little less interesting but still might matter but yeah beginning tuesday with yankees bouches and phillies braves you've got some pretty exciting head-to-head ones so there's going to be some good scoreboard watching even though the cardinals have made one race at least a little less interesting because they just they they refuse to lose they listen to the pod and they were like

we didn't realize that was an option yeah but okay i guess we we will invoke the heretofore unknown um refuse to lose clause of the collective bargaining agreement and the rule book and we don't know why other people don't take advantage of this it's really helped us out yeah they have allowed 51 runs in those 16 games and they have scored 109 so they have cleaned their opponents clocks during the streak and they came into that with a negative run differential probably i i guess based on where they are now i'll have to check to see where they stand but they were not looking like any kind of powerhouse, but they have actually been beating up on their opponents during that streak, which I guess any 16 game winning streak, you're going to expect that there will have been

some beating up of opponents, but it's not like they've been winning one run games necessarily. They've definitely had some weird devil magic kind of plays, but overall they have earned those wins. And it's the longest winning streak since the 22 game Cleveland won four years ago, but it's the longest NL winning streak since 1951. The 1951 Giants. That's a really long time. It's hard to win 16 games in a row, especially if you don't seem like you're a team that is about to reel off 16 wins. So when we were talking to Jay Jaffe about, you know, team entropy and potential tiebreaker scenarios and how they always seem to come to not because something happens to break those up. Well, this is one of the things that can happen. The Cardinals of all teams can just win 16 games in a row against a bunch of good teams, including teams that they were competing with directly. Yeah, but it doesn't mean that they're going to win in October. No, and that's another thing that Jay just wrote about, right?

That's another one of his beats that he returns to every few years. Yeah, it doesn't really tell you that much about what a team is likely to do. Well, let me rephrase that. It doesn't make them more likely to dominate in October if they've happened to dominate in September. The thing about the playoffs is that there are a lot of good teams and good teams lose to other good teams all the time. Yeah. I'll link to his latest post about this. But there is some correlation between regular season performance and postseason performance.

But the correlation is much less strong between September performance and postseason performance, but the correlation is much less strong between September performance and playoff performance. And I guess you'd expect that because it's just one month and one month is usually not going to be as telling as a full season. But it seems like in a lot of cases, the better teams, the teams that do have more playoff success didn't really have a hot streak at the end of the season. They were just good all the way. Whereas some team like the Cardinals that is not great, perhaps it deserves to be here, but is not a juggernaut or wasn't until very recently. They may need that hot September to get them in and then maybe there will be some regression in store. So yeah, they're at

plus 34 run differential for the season. So prior to this streak, they had been outscored on the season. So yeah, didn't exactly see that coming, but it's been fun. Yeah, it's been fun. Mariners, 2.6% playoff odds for the Wild Card. Oh boy. Oh boy. Yeah, the Mariners and A's are playing each other too

That's another intriguing one Although that's more in a Someone needs to sweep to even Really have a chance to stay in this thing But Philly's Braves is Morton vs. Wheeler Freed vs. Nola Anderson vs. Gibson

That's the big guns That's a pretty good set of matchups there So it's going to be a fun final week, I think. Yeah, I think so. I mean, it'll be a stressful final week for those invested in particular teams doing well. But if you're just in the market for good baseball, that means something. This is a good week for it. Yeah.

And I saw some people wondering, like, why are the Red So socks playoff odds still so strong they do wonder that yeah yeah because they didn't even go down all that much given that sweep and they're in pretty perilous position if you look at the standings i guess part of it is that they are finishing the season against the orioles and the nationals yep while the yankees and blue jays are playing each other. The Mariners and A's are playing each other. So yeah, it's largely because of the schedule, I guess. Like they have to do as well because their opponents are going to be facing each other. Yep. And stiffer competition, as you noted, they get to beat up on the Orioles theoretically.

Although sometimes the Orioles were like, we shall fly away. We will not be beat up upon. Yes. All right. Well, let us take just aoles were like, we shall fly away. We will not be beat up upon. Yes. All right. Well, let us take just a very quick break. And we will be back with our listener and Patreon supporter and professional sports photographer Dylan Buell to answer some emails. Phone chalk wrapper, phone chalk wrapper, phone chalk wrapper. Sit down, turn around, and make your body bend. I got the knuckle on the tripod with a wide angle lens.

This could be your day. If you care to stay, I'll make a shipment out of you if it's the last thing I do. If I don't do that, I hang the picture in my flag. Phone chalk wrapper, phone chalk supporter, Dylan Buell. Dylan, welcome to the podcast. Hey, thanks for having me. Well, tell us a little bit about yourself, but first, I suppose, how you came across our Bear podcast.

And as I always ask when one of our Patreon supporters comes on, what could have possibly possessed you to support us the way that you did? You know, it's been so long. I mean, not a crazy amount of time, but it's been long enough that I don't exactly remember how I came across it. I was probably just looking for any sort of baseball podcast to listen to. Came across this podcast and absolutely loved it from the get-go. And I was listening to an episode this spring

where you had a different Patreon supporter on. And for whatever reason, I just didn't realize that was a possibility. And then once I did, I was like, oh, I need to get in on this. Because many of my colleagues, baseball is not their favorite sport. So I don't get a whole lot of opportunities to just talk about baseball. So for the opportunity to come on here and just chat about a sport I love, I was all about it. Yeah. There are probably less expensive ways to talk to people about baseball. Well, I mean, I also try to support people that are in the industry as much as I can. I'm a photographer, so I like to support other photographers and just other

people in the sports media outlet genre as well. So it seems all around like a win-win. Yeah, certainly was a win for us. Well, you mentioned being a photographer. And while we were chatting before we started recording, I know you shoot baseball games and other sports. What has been your path through the sports photography world? of my downtime, I worked at our student newspaper at Ball State where I went to college. And I was actually going to school to be a history teacher for high school. And the plan was to be a high school history teacher and then coach the baseball team. And my last semester of college, I decided, you know, for the heck of it, I'm just going to apply to some newspaper jobs as a photographer because I really enjoyed it just to see if anything happens. And low enough, sure enough, I ended up getting one at a newspaper in Frankfort, Kentucky,

the State Journal. So I moved down there and I was there for almost four years. And I started doing some freelance stuff on the side in the sporting world. And when what happens a lot with newspapers, my position got cut and I had this opportunity to go to other different newspapers if I wanted to. But I really enjoyed doing the sports stuff as a freelancer. So I decided to take a leap and do that full time, which had me move to the Milwaukee, Chicago area, which was great for me because I had kind of grown up in that general area. So I knew it pretty well. So I was in Milwaukee for about five years. And as being a freelancer means you kind of have to go where the work is. So just due to some various different factors, it was a good opportunity for me to move down to Cincinnati,

which I did this year, right before the baseball season started. And so far it's worked out really well. So I have no complaints. Yeah. This is an interesting gig. I don't think we've ever had a sports photographer on the podcast. We probably just would have had you on as a guest for free. You could have saved your money. Oh, well, now you tell me. Too late. But tell us a little bit about it then, because you were telling us before we started that you've done all sorts of sports, including baseball, including MLB. So what's the breakdown and how did the assignments work? Right. So I basically do all my work for one company, Getty Images, and they kind of work with me about scheduling. They have events they need covered in various areas, and then they'll

ask me if I want to cover them. And if I say yes, the vast majority of what I do is the major sports leagues in college. So NBA, NFL, MLB, and then D1 colleges. So here, Cincinnati and Xavier coming up with basketball. But there's a bunch of other stuff too that comes up. I've done a lot of golf this year, which has been a lot of fun. I've done some really random stuff. I've done sailing out on the Chicago Harbor, which was a lot of golf this year, which has been a lot of fun. I've done some really random stuff. I've done sailing out on the Chicago Harbor, which was a lot of fun. I'm shocked I didn't get seasick.

I've done beach volleyball. I'm sure there's other things, marathons I've done. I'm sure there's things I'm forgetting that I've done as well. But it's a really fun gig. But there's a lot more to it than most people would think because they hear about what I do. And I think in their mind, they have a very specific vision of what that job is to them, which is essentially the same experience they have going to a baseball game, but also taking pictures. And it's a little bit different than that, to put it mildly. So I always enjoy getting a chance to actually talk about the job because I think a lot of people don't really realize all that goes into it.

Have there been any moments this season that you were able to capture that you were particularly proud of or excited by? Were there any shots that you thought, wow, I just really happened to be in the exact right place at the exact right time? Or an all-time favorite photo, if not this season. Yeah, I think all-time is easier. This season, not a whole lot jumps out at me off the top of my head. I just enjoy shooting at Great American Ballpark. It's such a beautiful ballpark to work at, right on the river. It's just gorgeous.

But all-time, there are definitely a few that stand out to me. So I grew up as a Cubs fan about four or five minutes east of Chicago. And I was fortunate enough to work the playoffs in 2016. So I was shooting at the top of the grandstand out in left field at Wrigley Field the night they won the pennant. of these guys celebrating. And, you know, I'm trying to like hold all my emotions in and like stay focused and be in the moment and do my job. But it was just so cool just to be there and be a part of the history that, I mean, that one definitely stands out to me the most. And I was also a photo editor for the World Series Games in Chicago, but we were kind of like underneath Wrigley. So not the same kind of experience, but it was still amazing to be there. So are you sort of set up in a camera well generally, or are you like a scout who is roving all over the park and trying to get shots from different angles?

Right. So normally, you know, we have photo wells, you know, for baseball stadiums, which are basically little extensions of the dugouts. And each park's a little different depending on where you go to, like Great American Ballpark has little photo wells on the inside and outsides of both sides of the dugouts. Other parks are different. Obviously last year was very different for us. And I was in Milwaukee at the time and we were relegated to the section directly behind home plate. And then we had to go up to the upper levels. You know, we couldn't go in the

lower levels and obviously couldn't go in the photo wells for obvious reasons. So it was very, very different. And in those kinds of situations, you know, it's very, it's unfortunate. You can't get the same kind of pictures, but I try to take advantage of those opportunities and try to get photos that I couldn't normally get. So last season, for example, I went out to the outfield and shot from like the outfield stands. Cause you know, obviously normally I can't get out there with all the people there. So it was different, but it was also kind of fun in a weird way. I also shot the Alec Mills no hitter last year at Miller Park against the Brewers, which was so strange, you know, to think that it arguably might be the least witnessed no hitter in person. Yeah.

And to be there for that, it was just very, very strange. But yeah, normally we're in photo wells, like basically right at the end of the dugouts. Was the pandemic an easier sort of environment for you to shoot in just because there are fewer distractions or fewer people jostling you? there fewer distractions or fewer people jostling you or was it harder because you couldn't get as close or because you had cardboard creepy things in the background of every shot you asked most photographers and you know it was definitely frustrating not to get the kind of shots that we normally could get but at the same time like from a pragmatic standpoint it was so much easier you know you could roll up right into the front of the stadium and park wherever you wanted a half hour before the game started.

You could stroll up to where you were sitting. You didn't have to fight the fans getting through the concourse. From just a logistical standpoint, it was so much easier without fans. But it's hard to beat a great environment with a packed stadium. So as much as there were some advantages to shooting without a crowd last year, I always enjoy, you know, having a great, great environment with, you know, 30,000, 40,000 people. Beyond just the people there, I wonder if compared to other sports, there are any like practical advantages or disadvantages to shooting baseball games relative

to, say, football or, gosh, sailing. I too would get seasick, so I admire you being able to stay away from that. But are there any particular things about baseball that make it especially gratifying to shoot as a photographer? I think most of the photographers don't like baseball because to them it's so slow, which, okay, fair. But as someone who loves baseball, I think it's great because it gives you, it's a real test of what you can do to make yourself stand out and make different photos. I mean, you know, if you shoot every home game, that's 81 games, nine innings each, that's so much time to make photos and it can be a slog at times. And that's at least to me, that's what you can really try to test yourself and say, okay, this is my seventh game in a row. I want to do something different. What can I do different? And, you know, with the length of the games and

just, there's just so many opportunities to just try to do something different. And, you know, so many opportunities to just try to do something different. And, you know, compared to say football, you know, if there's a big play in football, you know, a 40, 50 or a touchdown, you know, deep throw, whatever, you know, chances are that play happens very, very rarely. You know, if you're trying to do something different and unique with like a pitcher, for example, you know, if you don't get it the first time, you can try again, you can try again, you can try again. So baseball kind of gives you an opportunity to really test yourself and expand what you can try to do from a photography standpoint. Yeah, no one's wearing helmets and there aren't as many people on the field potentially blocking your view or... Oh, the umpires do plenty of that, trust me. frame photos just the way you want. How many photos would you take, would you estimate in

the course of a given game? For a baseball game, probably anywhere between, and granted, a lot of it depends on what kind of game it is, who's playing. I'd say a pretty good estimate is anywhere between like 1800 to 2200. Wow. Now, granted, of course, all those aren't going to get used. Right. But you have to go through them all to figure out which ones will get used, right? Oh, yeah, absolutely. So, you know, I just got back from today's Reds Pirates game, which was a makeup. And, you know, I'll, you know, spend this evening, a couple hours, two, three hours going through all those and putting posting more photos. So, you know, going back to my point about like how some people have an idea of what I do versus what it actually is, a baseball game for me, the whole experience from the time I leave my apartment to the time I'm actually done with one game is probably a 12-hour ordeal. And then you get these stretches where you have 10 games in a row.

So even as someone that loves baseball, by the end of that stretch, I'm just like, I just want to go to bed. So do you know what you'll be doing for the playoffs, if anything, or are you still waiting to hear? Chances are probably not much. Cincinnati, technically, as of right this moment, is still technically alive for that second wildcard spot. But I don't think the devil magic or the Cardinals is going to let up anytime soon. So I don't anticipate any playoff games here. Uh, there's always, always the possibility for me going somewhere or at the very least, uh, editing from home, which is something great that we can do now. So, you know, you never know with, especially with my line of work, uh, stuff comes up all the time. So you always have to be on your toes.

Yeah. Well, this is fascinating. I'm happy that we happen to have a sports photographer on the podcast for the first time. And I reserve the right to return to this topic and ask you more questions about it if they occur to me as we proceed here. Oh, please do. who see the emails in advance. Some of our guests understandably want a preview, but you're coming in cold here, as is Meg. But this is the authentic Effectively Wild email show experience. I'm just springing these on you. Yeah, I kind of like the off the cuff. It's a little more authentic, at least I feel. All right, so let's stick with the playoffs as a subject here.

And we got a couple of related questions. This one is from RG, who says, one of my problems with pro sports is that a team can finish under 500 and still make the playoffs because of division alignment. The NFL has had this happen recently. Meg helped me out with specifics, and I'm pretty sure the NBA has as well. This rewards incompetence and punishes excellence, to paraphrase the Simpsons. Would your opinion of expanded MLB playoffs change if the baseline for admission to the postseason were a 500-plus record? Division leaders would hold unless the leader was under 500, which is extremely unlikely based on current incentives. Wildcards would go in order of success

in the regular season. Yeah, you might get an ALNL DH problem the way MLB is currently constructed, and you might have all the extra playoff teams from the NL West, but suppose a universal DH from the next CBA. So that was one version of that question. And then Drew in Austin, Texas has another spin on it. With all the talk about different playoff formats, I figured I would introduce another concept. As if the discourse weren't already overplayed, would it be the absolute best idea or worst idea to introduce an annually evolving system like the cut line in professional golf? For those not familiar, the cut happens after the first two rounds, and only the top-ranked players continue. In some tournaments, like the Masters masters it also requires you be a certain

number of strokes behind the leader so if you're at a decent rank but way off the lead you still get cut this could help solve years where more non-division winner wild card contenders are more competitive than other years so this seems to be on some of our listeners minds with the playoffs starting and with the likelihood that we will get expanded playoffs as soon as next season, which will mean even more mediocre teams getting into the playoffs. So does either of you have thoughts on setting some sort of minimum here? And I'll just mention Drew proposed you could come up with some sort of acceptable deviation from the division leaders, which could mean some years you get zero wild cards and others you get five

so there's more unpredictability here but there's also better quality potentially i guess we just have to accept that we'll get expanded playoffs we can't continue to fight this good fight we can pretend that it might not happen until it happens but it seems unlikely that my pretending will be fruitful it seems like it seems like futile pretending will be fruitful. It seems like futile pretending, futile pretending. Well, I think having a floor is a strong incentive, right, to participation, because this is the thing we worry about with expanded playoffs, that it's going to be this mediocre pool and that teams won't have to invest in their rosters because they will still be able to sneak into the playoffs. I wonder, though, if we think that a 500 floor is a stringent enough requirement. Do we want to aim higher than 500? Yeah, 500 is not high enough for my taste, I would say. I'd like you to be at least a winning team and probably better than that. So I like the idea

in theory. I mean, I think it's tough to expand the playoffs and then also say that we're not going to let you in unless you're a good team. Those two things are kind of in conflict. It would be better if we just made the playoffs more exclusive and then this wouldn't be an issue. But if we're trying to do both, I don't know. It's tough, Dylan. Anything occur to you? I think it would be tough just like on a mechanical level scheduling wise. I mean, the photographers have to know where they're going the running, right? But you'd be waiting with bated breath to see if they cleared whatever the cut line was to make it into the playoffs to know if you have to go to work. Right, exactly. I mean, you see this a lot with the NBA that has, you know, more than half the teams get into the playoffs where teams under 500 make the playoffs all the time. So I think to your point where you say, well, we're going to expand playoffs, but we have to have the threshold. I just don't see that working. This does remind me

if I remember my baseball history correctly, it used to be that there were no divisions whatsoever. It was just ALNL and playoff seedings were just based on league standing. Yeah. There was just a world series. No playoffs particularly. Yeah. Right. So I'm just wanting to just take the best eight, ten, however many teams from each league and just do away with divisions, go really radical in that sort of way? Yeah. I mean, I don't have a strong objection to doing away with divisions. I know that people like the rivalry, right?

You want to respect sort of these historic rivalries that have built up over time. But I think that you, well, first of all, I don't think we let go of feelings very easily, so we probably would keep those rivalry vibes regardless. But it does seem like a bit of reseeding is maybe in order to just guarantee that you're truly matching the best of the best. Now, the real question for us sabermetric heads is, are we satisfied with record as a means of doing that? We're never going to persuade the league to seed the playoffs based on base runs record, and I don't know that we should. That might be a bit much.

That might be us being a little bit fussy and fancy, but it does seem a little bit silly that teams might have identical records while we can look at them as we talked about on our last episode and note that they are wildly different in terms of their underlying sort of talent level and production, right? Yeah, I'm just trying to think of some of the logistical issues that would come into play here if you don't know how many playoff teams you're going to have in advance. Yeah, that'd be absolutely wild. That'd be a scheduling nightmare for everyone, really. Exactly, really. Like it's already difficult, I think, just to organize all of that when sometimes the matchups come down to the last week or even the last day of the regular season. And so not to know in advance. I mean, it's not as if you have like neutral site World Series as some teams do. And that's like planned in advance. And you're going to get a World Series anyway. It's more about how many other teams and rounds will be in the mix. But I don't know. In theory, I like it because I want a certainality. I mean, you make it, but you have no chance really to advance. And NBA playoffs and the odds and the probabilities and all of that, it certainly differs from

MLB and you're more likely to get upsets in MLB, whereas in NBA, it just seems like why even bother with this? But it seems tough for me to try to split the difference here and ensure quality and quantity i don't know that we can have both yeah so maybe just like a a record but surely a record floor would be fine most of the time how often how many sub 500 teams did we have in the expanded field last year i don't remember now. Was it just like the Astros? Did the Astros have a sub 500 record? It would be like if we said you had to have 87 wins or something like that, then we might see some teams just not making the cut. So it depends where you set it. And I don't know that you could set it anywhere that would satisfy me and still give you a workable like 16 team playoff format.

Hopefully it's not 16. Maybe it's 12. Maybe it's 14. Hope there's some middle ground there maybe where you don't have most teams making the playoffs at least if it gets to 16 teams we'll be playing until christmas oh my gosh yeah well and just remember how busy that day was we just had so you couldn't watch all the games you could watch like in at bat from each of the games and then have to declare yourself satisfied so at some point it's just too much baseball for anyone to reasonably engage with although presumably if you were willing to go a little deeper into the into the

fall and winter although hopefully not till christmas um you could stagger things a bit better than we were able to last year last year we wanted more baseball and we wanted to get out of there as soon as we possibly could what a what funny, what a sticky wicket that proved to be. Yeah. I guess this would potentially make some races more interesting up to the end, or some teams would have more incentive to really go for it at the end because they might miss the cut, even if they would make the playoffs otherwise, just based on the format, but the record's not good enough. So you'd see more teams maybe having to just go pedal to the metal all the way to the end, which I guess would be good.

But yeah, there's some issues here. I like the theory. Maybe we can work on some of the specifics here. All right. Ranger says, what if a pitch thrown outside the strike zone subtracted a strike from the count instead of adding a ball for example if the count is 01 and the next pitch is a ball the count would then be back to even oh no seems like it would reduce strikeouts and increase balls in play there might be some really long plate appearances

that was immediately my first thought yep yeah that's kind of the catch here. Gosh, can you imagine? I mean, Dylan, you have to shoot photos of Joey Votto all the time. Can you imagine Joey Votto? This is an option. Oh, man, there would be innings that would last like 45 minutes. Right.

There would be at-bats that would last 15 minutes. Yep. Yeah, and this would, oh, man, this would be an issue. I'm imagining the hassle for RetroSheet and all the database people to have to keep track of the counts because you would have multiple identical counts within the same plate appearance and not just multiple two-strike counts where someone's fallen off a bunch of pitches, but you would proceed in the count and then you would go backward in the count and the slate would be clean again.

I mean, this would be wild. You could wipe out the whole thing potentially. So yeah, I like the creativity here, Ranger. But if we're trying to shorten games, it's just not going to get us there. Yeah. And I can't imagine how taxing that would be on a pitching staff where you would have guys that could throw maybe two, three innings at the most. Yeah. I mean mean i guess you would get an increase in offense right because once you get ahead in the count i mean you can't throw waste pitches or you're gonna undo your advantage you're not gonna be ahead in the count anymore so

you're just gonna kind of have to stay in the strike zone here for the most part and so i guess that could lead to some quicker plate appearances just because there will be a lot more just hittable pitches and fewer fishing expeditions and the obligatory two balls that are thrown after someone goes up oh two but in practice this could be a problem i do like when we get questions where people are like you know you guys like to talk about how different baseball would be if it were different. And then they describe a thing where no one would ever want to engage with the sport. It's like, what if baseball lasted longer?

Not a little bit, but a lot. What if all you did with your week was watch baseball? Would you like it then? Huh? Huh? It's like a weird hostage situation. What if each game only ended after someone scored 10 runs? Be like cricket.

Right. The real refuse to lose. Yes. Yeah. This would also be difficult probably for players and umpires just to keep track of the count. There would definitely be more confusion because, wait, are we back to 1-2 now? Where were we exactly? So there'd probably be some more accidental strikeouts and walks and just general confusion it would definitely lead to some strategic differences this is one where baseball would actually be different i'm pretty sure so you'd see fewer strikeouts and just more offense but that would also add to game length all right says in basketball, they have a sixth man of the year, an award given to the best bench player each year. I think it would be really fun if baseball had a similar award acknowledging the best pinch hitter every year. Is this a pointless idea that nobody

would care about except for me? Probably because the Dodgers would win every year. If it did exist, who would the award be named after maybe the one who spent the most time as a pinch hitter or accumulated the most war i think of someone like tommy listella in 2016 and as a cubs fan it would have been really cool to see him get some recognition and i was thinking of this as maybe not even specifically limited to pinch hitters just because there really aren't a lot of dedicated pinch hitters in this era of baseball, but maybe just a general utility player award. I don't know if something like that exists, but there isn't a well-known version of that award. So what say you?

I like this idea very much. I mean, I think he's right that we would just end up giving it to a bunch of Dodgers a lot of the time, although not exclusively, right? It would be good. I think he's right that we would just end up giving it to a bunch of Dodgers a lot of the time, although not exclusively, right? It would be good. I think it would be a nice way to acknowledge the guys where we have, you know, we have this sense that there is some amount of value that guys like, you know, Chris Taylor, just to name the guy that is the best contemporary example of this probably, that guys like Chris Taylor bring a value that maybe extends beyond what we are able to ascribe to them from a war perspective because of their versatility and it allows the team to weather injuries in a way that they might not be able to

and get creative with their lineups and do all sorts of stuff. And so, you know, those guys sometimes do accumulate war to the point where you're like, oh, this guy might just be in the MVP conversation, but often they don't. And so I think it would be nice. It'd be nice to give them something, if only because then when they go in,

when they become free agents or whatever, we have decided collectively that this is a thing that is worthy of getting a plaque for at the end of the year or carrying hardware into your free agent meetings right in a way that i think would be would be cool but it's also just a nice you know there's something that isn't there's something like unselfish about being willing to to take on that role and not complaining about it too much and not every guy can do it because some guys are too defensively limited to be able to play all over the field in the way you need to be able to to do

this and i think a lot of guys are just happy to have a role every day, even if it's one that, you know, puts them in different spots, depending on what the rest of the team needs, but we could let them be a little bit selfish at the end of the year and get a shiny plaque or something. That'd be nice. Um, my kind of first thought was like, so where's the cutoff, right? Like, is it by percentage of at-bats, like percentage of starts compared to your team? And, you know, if you have a guy like Chris Taylor that's doing really well and is like, let's say, the frontrunner for this potential award, and then his manager wants to start him and he's like, no, no, no, don't start me. Right. I don't want to ruin this opportunity.

So I'll just sit the bench. It's fine. I'll just come up and, you know and bottom a six or whatever you need. And I'm fine back here. Yeah. I don't know if a Taylor or a Zobrist or a Bryant, someone who is like a multi-position player but is in the lineup somewhere every day. Right. Might play too often.

Right. Yeah. Because the six-man award, I mean, that's going to someone who's often on the bench, right? Right. Right, might play too often. Like not a super utility player, but just a regular old utility player. Someone who plays part of the time and plays a bunch of different positions. So yeah, I think there would have to be some sort of playing time maximum for this award beyond which you are no longer eligible. And then maybe there would have to be some sort of split when it comes to positions so you'd have to have played at least x number of positions or maybe there would have to be a certain percentage of your playing time spent at a certain number of positions but yeah i would want to keep it to like the really unsung overlooked kind of player as opposed to the player who could be a star level player but just happens to do it all over the field maybe i want both things i just want to give everyone an award classic millennial

yeah i like the idea though and i'm just i'm thinking back to like utility players of my youth i mean just watching the yankees and it would be like louisho or like Miguel Cairo or someone like that, like someone who just happened to have like a small sample good season or was just clutch for whatever reason that year and just was your backup at a bunch of different positions and was just not a staple in the lineup. I don't know who we would name it after it's like the nick punto award or someone like that the the brock halt award i don't know someone of that caliber as a player i think and in the spirit of like everyone getting awards i really hope that the award itself is like just like the super cheap plasticky t-ball t-ball trophy. Yes. Right.

Like the participation type trophy that I used to get for like most improved player or best sportsmanship or whatever. And then the manager takes him out for Dairy Queen. All right. Here's a question from Ted, another Patreon supporter, who says, reporter who says, after listening to the discussion about Joe West's Hall of Fame case in episode 1698, I also came across the story of Nav Bhatia, the Toronto Raptors superfan, being inducted into the Basketball Hall of Fame. It got me thinking, what kind of non-traditional inductee would you like to see in Cooperstown? By non-traditional, I mean someone who is not a player, coach, front office exec, umpire, or member of the media.

And do you have a specific person in mind for that non-traditional inductee? The recent story of the White Sox changing the name of a stadium lounge from the name of a long-time stadium worker to the La Russa Lounge made me think perhaps a stadium worker or perhaps a mascot

could be a good choice. But would love to hear your thoughts. And mascot, that's a good one. That's a similarly unsung person who has a tough job. In most cases, I guess it's not the same person who is inside the mascot costume for years on end, but occasionally it is. It's like your summer intern who gets stuck with that job and has to sweat and smell all the smells in there. But if someone were doing that consistently, then that would probably be Hall of Fame worthy. I just love the thought of a mascot taking off their head and underneath is just like some 65-year-old grizzled veteran that's been there

for 40 years. exactly yes and they would finally be recognized for their mascotting so that's one that would work i think or i was thinking like grounds crew member oh yeah there are some really long tenured grounds crew members and some legendary grounds crew families who have passed down that tradition and that's one where there actually is like on-field value at times it's obviously valuable and that you need a playable surface to conduct the game on but also there's potentially value if you are trimming the grass in a certain way let's say to deaden balls or to make them go faster, depending on, you know, there are all sorts of stories we've discussed on the podcast before about slants and angles. And if you have a team that bunts a lot and you want to keep their bunts fair, et cetera, et cetera.

There's all kinds of ways you could maybe sort of jimmy with the field a little bit and the grounds crew would be responsible for that. But also, if you just keep the field looking good and playable, then that's Hall of Fame worthy, I think. Someone has to do that job, and it's not easy. really big difference on how fans experience the game when they go to the park and how welcome they feel and how comfortable they are and whether they walk away saying like yeah i had a you know i had like a memory making experience that was a good one or i had an experience that was really terrible and it makes me think twice about like engaging with the team i think that stuff makes a pretty significant difference and we don't think about how small choices around that can make a really big impact on how people experience the ballpark.

I like the idea of giving a spot to a fan, but like not the fan, like I love the scarf lady in Toronto because I love her many scarves, but I like the idea of giving an award to a fan who's like not in like the primo seats that we can see, who's made a home in another part of the park where normal folks are going to the game and experiencing the club and showing their support.

I mean, the scarf lady should go to the Hall of Fame for her scarves alone because those are fantastic. But I like the idea of saying this person is representative not only of their own commitment to the club, but of all the other fans who might sit in that seat. I like that idea. Someone who's beating a drum in the bleachers or starting the roll call in Yankee Stadium, something like that. Yeah. Hall of Fame sports photographer, perhaps? Oh, yeah.

Yeah, it'd be nice to wind up there one day. But they did specifically say outside of members of the media. That, yeah. Yeah, it'd be nice to wind up there one day. But they did specifically say outside of members of the media. That's true. But outside of that, a couple that I think of are public address announcers. Oh, yeah. You know, that are there for many, many years that are quite literally the voice of the stadium. Yep.

I'm thinking of equipment managers. Usually they are with the teams for a very, very long time. You don't see them too much anymore, obviously, because of the past couple of years. But food vendors, a lot of those are there for many, many years. And I know from people telling me that have, you know, had season tickets for certain teams for many years. You know, they're a staple of their experiences over the years. You know, that they're always there. They know each other by first name. So if you get, you know, we'll see how much that kind of comes back, you know, next year, if we're going to

start seeing vendors walking up and down the aisles again. But yeah, I mean, those vendors have always been a very, a part of the ballpark experience, especially if you get, you know, the guys that chuck peanuts from three aisles over and can, you know, nail you every single time, you know, I, you know, we kind of talked about, you know, stadium workers, but yeah, I would definitely, those kind of the people that are, that are there. And when you go to a game and kind of what Meg was saying, when you know they're there and they're going to enhance your experience at a game for years and years and years. I think those people deserve recognition. Yeah. Organists, perhaps?

Oh, yeah. Yeah, I thought about that as well. Specifically, of course, I'm terribly forgetting his name, but the Wrigley Field organist retired after many, many years recently. Yeah, so same kind of line. Yeah, I agree. Very pressy, I guess. Yes.

Yeah, there have been many organists who have held down that job for a certain team for years, decades. Yeah, so something like that. Maybe like a video board operator. Just like someone who always knew when to put the make some noise sign up there. Just like operated the decibel meter, the fake decibel meter like a pro. He just operated the decibel meter, the fake decibel meter like a pro. Just had great between innings entertainment, not too obtrusive, not too loud, just tasteful. That would be nice. Yeah, I guess like Dave Raymond, who was the founding fanatic, the person inside the fanatic, founded a mascot hall of fame to induct himself essentially so that's uh you know if you're not

getting the recognition then you might have to start your own hall of fame and the fanatic and some other mascots are on display in the hall of fame so i'm sure that there are artifacts and plaques and exhibits and things that have pertained to some of these occupations in the Hall of Fame at some point. But yeah, let them in. Let them into their own wing that is not exactly the player wing or the executive wing. Maybe it's the pioneer wing or maybe it's some other separate wing, but I like the idea. OK, here is a question from Paul. Enjoyed your discussion. is a question from Paul. Enjoyed your discussion. This was a while back of reality TV and its relationship to Ben's baseball crushes on Williams Astadio and Shohei Otani. It made me think of the early 21st century show Average Joe, where conventionally gorgeous woman was told she would be wooed by a ton of guys she would select from and was then surprised to find that her

suitors were not conventionally gorgeous. The big twist came when midway through the season, a bunch of conventionally gorgeous men came in to compete with the average guys that the woman had not yet eliminated and had gotten to know. In each of the first two seasons, the woman rejected the quote-unquote average guys and selected one of the gorgeous ones. This is different from Ben's situations with Otani and Astadio, of course, since Ben fell for the player's sight unseen. But I do wonder

how much a player's look impacts your baseball fandom. And if so, how? I wonder if you are like me and that you might have an inverse relationship between a player's look and your fandom. I find I am more likely to get a baseball crush on a player who is unconventional in looks, Randy Johnson, For me, it's not so, I guess it's the look, your development of a baseball crush. Are you like the stars of average Joe or are you like me? For me, it's not so, well, I guess it's the look, but it's more about how they present themselves,

I guess, with their uniform and equipment. So one, if they bat without gloves, big plus for me. And two, if they wear high socks and especially proper stirrups, if they have those two things going, I don't care what team they play on, I'm all for them. Yeah. You have to have, I guess in your day job, you need someone photogenic, but that can differ. Maybe it's just about your style more so than your inherent appearance. But yeah, I find that definitely there's value to unconventional and it's funny

because scouts you know they have their mental database of previous players and so often a player who looks different in some way will get the short end of the stick because a scout will say well i've never seen a player look like this and be good. And I'm going based on what I've seen before. That's how I project. The past performance is a decent indicator. And so that's how you end up with Jose Altuve or whoever just getting underrated initially, just because there haven't been a lot of superstars like that guy. And so as a player evaluator, I suppose you're probably a little extra wary of just the outliers, the unconventional looking players.

And yet as a fan, as an analyst, as a writer, I think you are drawn to that type of player, right? Someone who just breaks the mold in some way, whether it's their game or whether it's their dimensions or just their batting stance or their mechanics or whatever it is like we definitely like the weird ones right i mean not exclusively like we like mike trout and mike trout kind of out of central casting i mean maybe more out of like football central casting than baseball central casting yeah but you know he's big and strong and fast and athletic looking and you look at him and you think yeah that's someone who looks like an athlete and maybe he surprises you with how good he is at everything but you're not surprised that he can hack it at that level whereas you look at some other particular players and you might think you

know i haven't seen a whole lot of high level players who look like that before. And I think that leads to fondness, right? I think it does for me and probably for most fans, because maybe you identify with them to an extent, because if you are not someone who has the build of a pro athlete, then you see yourself in Tony Kemp or whoever, and you say, hey, you know, if you're not a large person, you think, oh, that isn't a large person either, and he made it. So it's representation for people with my type of body. Or maybe it's just we've seen hundreds, thousands of baseball players, and so we're attracted to the new and novel. And if you look a little different in whatever way, then you're going to make us perk look a little different in whatever way then you're

going to make us perk up a little bit i think that what i appreciate is like striking looks more than someone who looks like they'd be cast in a baseball movie and so sometimes that's them deviating from our expectation of what an athlete, a professional athlete body might look like, right? So like, you know, it's cool to see like Dejo Lee be so good at baseball because we have an expectation that like someone is gonna be like really cut and like lithe, right? Like that's kind of how we think of athletes.

And so it's cool when people who have different kinds of bodies can do really well in a sport without having to look that way or like you know al tuve's being tiny because he's so tiny um or tony cam being tiny even though they're both taller than i am is like is cool but i also just appreciate like a really striking uh look i think this is why we like mustaches on on pictures right because you just like have a it's like that is a that is an assertive look you are looking yourself you are being uh you know you're looking at a way that

is you know you're you're committing to a bit right like you're like really into that twirly mustache or what have you so i think that when a player looks particular and striking and interesting, it's just easier to find them dynamic. And I think that's part of why I especially like striking pitchers because you're already trying to insert that person into a central spot in the narrative, particularly for starters, because it's like this guy's going to be up there and who's in the box might change, but you know, he's going to go six or seven innings, maybe. I think that having someone who really starts to grab you in terms of how they look is pretty cool. I wonder if it's a marketing thing even for the players who may not have the Acuna and Trout talent, but it's like, you know what?

If I grow a mustache, if I have a really awkward or weird batting stance, like people can remember me because growing up as a kid, like, you know, who probably weren't that great of players, but I remember them very vividly is Craig Council and Chuck Knobloch specifically for their batting stances. So, you know, that kind of, you know, if you have a little bit of extra flair to you, you know, that can, that can go a long way. Yeah. I think it's, it's kind of like when people evaluate pitchers and the pitches that they throw, they find that you can do well if you deviate from the average pitcher in one direction or another, maybe you have super high spin, maybe you have super low spin. Maybe you have a ton of movement. Maybe you have very little movement. I mean, it depends on the thing, but often hitters are kind of calibrating their swing for like the median pitch, the pitch that they're

seeing most often. And so if you can deviate from that in either direction, it can be beneficial. And I think that applies here too, where we're talking about maybe players who don't fit the stereotype of a conventional professional athlete, but also it could be people who fit it incredibly well, who fit it more than anyone else. I'm talking about Bo Jackson. I'm talking about Aaron Judge, John Carl Stanton. I mean, someone who just is on the opposite end of the scale where you make the conventional athletes look unconventionally athletic just because you are the embodiment of strength and power or force or speed or whatever it is. So I think we can appreciate that too, particularly in baseball where that kind of body

is not the norm either. Maybe you're less impressed by that in football, let's say, or by a tall basketball player than you are by a very tall baseball player. But in baseball, you have a very wide range of potential bodies. And I think that is one of the things that we appreciate about the sport. Oh, I definitely agree. Yeah. All right. So I guess we are not like the woman on average joe who was just choosing the conventionally gorgeous people man they did some really wild reality shows yeah pros versus joes is uh is even wilder john gonzalez just wrote a piece for us at the ringer about that which is basically just average people playing professional athletes in their sport, maybe recently retired ones, but just huge liability and injury issues there.

And that happened probably when not today. I can't imagine the amount of forms they'd have to sign. Right. Like on the one hand, that is like an obviously terrible idea. Like I'm surprised. Were there any like casualties as a result of that show uh i don't know if there were like fatalities i'm sure there were casualties of some sort yeah at least to people's ego but maybe that part maybe that part would secretly be good because

you know sometimes you go on twitter and people are like i could hit 100 mile an hour fastball and i'm like you sure could not and that's okay like I'm sure you're good at other stuff but you could not do that oh yeah I mean I'm I'm sure you know like tossing Christians to the lions in the Coliseum kind of way I'm sure it was very entertaining for a very bloodthirsty audience but uh not safe and not humane perhaps not advisable no definitely not all right here's a question also related to reality TV. This is from Henry, another Patreon supporter, who says, I've been passing time during the pandemic by watching old seasons of Survivor. And I was surprised to learn that one of the contestants on season 25 was none other than former MLB star Jeff Kent. Even more surprising is that he was successfully able to keep his baseball playing past a secret for gameplay reasons. He didn't want the other players to know that he was already a multimillionaire. Only one of the other contestants recognized him, and she was eliminated before she could reveal his secret to their tribe mates.

But I would have thought that Jeff Kent, a five-time All-Star and MVP winner with an extremely distinctive mustache, would be instantly recognizable to many. So my question is this. Who is the best baseball player who could remain anonymous as a Survivor contestant? We'd be looking for someone physically able to play the game, so about 60 years at oldest. In looking through the career war list, I think Scott Rowland at 70.1 is the highest ranking player who meets this criteria and whom I might not recognize on a desert island, but I'd love to hear your thoughts. So here we are talking about someone who does not look distinctive, at least to the general public. So Survivor, you're talking about what, 16 competitors, maybe 16 to 20. about what, 16 competitors, maybe 16 to 20. So you have that group of people pulled from all walks of life and the likelihood that they would recognize a Major League Baseball player.

I don't know. I'm not shocked that Jeff Kent went largely unrecognized here. I think that, oh, I have some takes on this. I think that you could pull an active major leaguer and put them on survivor and depending on how they who they were they would not be recognized i think especially like if they're out of context i bet i mean it wouldn't be 100 but i think you could put max muncie on survivor and there's like 25 odds that he makes it through that season without anyone realizing that he's a big leaguer, right? Yeah, I think so.

Probably. Or like Brandon Crawford, especially because his hair would get dirtier. I think he'd be fine. I think he could skate. Yeah. I mean, that's the conversation we always have about baseball and the lack of nationally or internationally recognized players, right? I mean, it's just a sport that people follow on a local level. So if you have your local prominent player and you don't happen to have anyone on the show

from that locality, then yeah, I think you could probably go incognito. And also there's the issue of just not recognizing people in the context where you don't usually see them. I mean, yeah, baseball player, like out of uniform without the cap on, I mean, it's a whole different equation. There are some baseball players who are like almost unrecognizable if you're not seeing them with the cap, which you are always seeing them in. So without that, just wearing civilian clothes with no headwear or different headwear, I think a very large

percentage of baseball players could get away with this. Now, maybe in an earlier era where baseball occupied a more prominent role on the national stage, it would have been harder to get away with it. Then again, it would have been harder to know what anyone looked like because you might not have had TV or you might not have had MLB TV, certainly. And so you just might not have seen as many pictures of these players. So yeah, I think baseball has the advantage of not having helmets. So you do get to see faces. Yeah. Even so, I think a very good active player could get away with this just fine. And I say this out of love love but i bet you could put

any of the current cubs on there and even i wouldn't recognize them and you're taking photos of them for a living so like you could i mean hmm is because is the is the bar that we want them to clear here that someone would say you're a professional athlete or is it you're paul goldschmidt aren't you like what because like i think that people i think that for example if you put any of the big beef boys on on survivor someone would say you're a professional athlete but they'd probably think they were a football player yeah yeah there might be like do i know you from somewhere yes yeah that sort of thing like yeah i don't think aaron judge is gonna get away with this but jake cronenworth would yeah probably right probably cronenworth

definitely would am i just saying like these generic looking white guys would pass through i think that might be what i'm saying okay well there's an opportunity there I suppose for the casting directors Of reality TV shows out there Okay last one This is from Thomas who says You've talked several times this season about how there are No Twitter highlight reels for plate discipline I for one would love

Such a Twitter account I've always loved Watching players take really tough pitches And work account I even thought of a Punny name for it, baseball hot takes. Now, I lack the technical skill to get an account like that going, but even besides that, when thinking of the idea, I struggled to come up with a good metric for defining a good take. General plate discipline metrics are easy enough to understand. Don't swing at pitches outside the zone, but on an individual pitch, it seems tougher to define. not swinging at a pitch that's 100% likely to be

called a ball isn't really a highlight. That's a basic take, not hot at all. Taking a 50-50 ball strike is maybe a highlight, but depending on the count, even good plate discipline guys will swing at those pitches because you've got to defend the zone with two strikes. And what about the umpire's role? If a guy takes a bad pitch, but it's called a strike, should that make the highlight real? Maybe the difficulty here is why we don't see these highlights in the first place but do you have any ideas is there any way to define a good take from a batter other than the eye test and yeah dylan i guess that would be a challenge for you like if you're covering the current slugging version of vato who hit two homers today while you were at the park i guess that's a little easier

than the vato who's taken close pitches and working a walk, which probably doesn't make for the most exciting action shot. No, it doesn't. But yeah, I mean, you kind of hit where I was going with this, but I mean, you could just make this very, very easy and just basically just post every Vado and Juan Soto at that and then call it a day. Like that's, that's all you need to do really. But I mean, if there's a demand, there's a market for everything. So I can't imagine someone would have enough time to start this kind of account and get it up and running. I could definitely see it happening. I think it would be hard. I think the point about the role that umpires play here would be difficult because you you might end up having pitches that are very

good takes that are then called uh incorrectly as a result of framing or the umpire just making a mistake and you know you're gonna react to two things in that scenario you're probably going to react to the call being a strike instead of a ball and and you're also going to react to the batter reacting to that right and so they're gonna be mad they're gonna be like that is not a strike instead of a ball. And you're also going to react to the batter reacting to that, right? And so they're going to be mad. They're gonna be like, that is not a strike. That is a ball, right? Like, I mean, again, Joey Votto is just like perpetually irritated by umpires because his sense of the zone is so good. And so I think it would be a hard thing to get quite right, because you're battling against reactions that sort of key us to react in an irritated way,

even if we really shouldn't. So I think it would be very tricky. Yeah, you could kind of automate it if you had access to something called strike probability metric. And yeah, you wouldn't want it to be an obvious ball. And you probably wouldn't want it even to be 50-50, because that's not necessarily a good take. It depends on the count, as Thomas was saying. So you'd probably want it in that middle zone where there was a legitimate chance that it could be a strike, but it was unlikely to be a strike. And that would give you probably mostly good results like it's funny like a lot of the times when i'm watching someone and i say oh that was a good take like a lot of it is watching the batter's reaction as you were saying and seeing like if he's tempted to take like if he flinches a little like if he starts the swing and stops i'll think oh good take like he he's tempted and he didn't go for it whereas if you're just taking all the way then it's the same result but it's not quite as impressive to me that you managed to curb your impulse or maybe you're even better at curbing your impulse so that you didn't even look like you were going to swing, even though you were considering it at some point.

Enormous market for it, but I do appreciate it. Then I don't know what a good take would be. That would be really tough. But you could do this. But I think if it were entirely automated, it would produce some results that didn't really fit our sense of what a good take is. And also a bunch of them would be boring. All right. Let's wrap up with a stat blast here. And Dylan, as you will discover, you do not actually hear the song when you are on the episode.

So you will just have to imagine in your head the stat blast song. I'll just sing it on my own part. Sometimes I do that and then other Dylan has to edit it out. They'll take a dataset sorted by sunset Like ERA- or OBS- And then they'll tease out some interesting tidbit Discuss it at length and analyze it for us In amazing ways Here's to Deist-a-plast Okay, here is a question from Sam, another Patreon supporter. How many seasons have the MVPs in both leagues not made the playoffs?

Seems like it could happen this year with Shohei Otani and Vlad vying for the AL MVP, and then Tatis and Harper and Soto going for the NL MVP. And it does seem likely at this point that this will happen, right? I mean, it's going to be either Otani or Vlad in the AL or Marcus Semyon. I mean, either way, you know, if the Jays miss the playoffs, then you're not going to get an AL MVP winner from a playoff team, I don't think. And then in the NL, I guess your best hope is that, well, you know, just as the Jays could still make the playoffs, the Phillies could still make the playoffs. And if they do, then Harper would have a good shot. But otherwise, I guess Corbin Burns could potentially have a case.

I don't know if he's having as otherworldly a season as a pitcher needs to have to get the MVP award because he just hasn't pitched a ton of innings, even though he has the best FIP other than 99 Pedro. And he is currently leading the NL in fan graphs war. But I just don't know if he would get the award so it seems like there's a decent chance that this will happen and as one might imagine it does not happen often

and it has not happened in a long time but it has happened there is some precedent so I went to Dan Hirsch of Baseball Reference another listener and Patreon supporter, for help here. And here is the list of years in which both MVPs, and maybe in some of these earlier years, the MVP had a different name, but it was essentially the MVP came from

non-playoff teams. So 1911, you had Ty Cobb and Frank Schulte. 1913, you had Walter Johnson and Jake Daubert. 1932, Jimmy Fox and Chuck Klein. 1937, Charlie Gerringer and Joe Medwick. 1938, Jimmy Fox again and Ernie Lombardi. 1952, Bobby Shantz and Hank Sauer 1958, Jackie Jensen, Ernie Banks 1977, Rod Carew and George Foster 1978, Jim Rice and Dave Parker And 1987, George Bell and Andre Dawson It has not happened since 1987 So this would be the first in, well, our lifetimes almost, not quite, in our living

memories at least. So that would be something. And I suppose it's not a huge surprise that this doesn't happen more often given historical voting patterns, but that is something to pay attention to as we wait for results this year. I'm just glad that there's precedent for it. There being precedent for it feels important because often people will say that winners should not come from teams that are not playoff teams. And they say it as if it has never happened. They say it with a certainty that makes very little sense. So it's gratifying to hear that there is some precedent for this. Although I continue to say that we should just rename the award and some of our problems would go away. Yeah, actually, there is quite a bit of precedent for non-playoff team players winning the MVP, just generally not in the same year twice in both leagues.

So I asked Dan about that too. 29.5% of MVPs have come from non-playoff teams. See? Yeah. I was curious about era effects here too, because you have a couple of forces working for or against. So in the past, in those early years, of course, the 1911 through 1958 examples I cited, that was pre-divisional era.

So there were only two playoff teams. Now there were also fewer teams, period. But it was more likely that you would end up maybe with a good player who was not on a playoff team. Now these days you have more playoff teams, and so the odds are against you're having the best player being on not a good team, as seems to happen with the Angels all the time these days. But you also have voting becoming more decoupled maybe from team performance, a newer generation of voters who are more likely to overlook the playoff factor. So these things are kind of working at cross purposes, but basically the way it works out, I said 29.5% of MVPs all time have come from non-playoff teams.

Prior to 1969, it was 33%. Since 1969, 26.2%. And since 1994, 19.2%. So it has gotten more rare in recent years for the MVP to come from a non-playoff team, presumably just because there are many more playoff teams. Yeah, that makes good sense. I mean, generally good players are going to help propel their teams, and then sometimes you're the angels. So, you know. Right.

Yeah. All right. And let me close with this last one here. This is from Patrick in New Plymouth, New Zealand, who is a Texas Rangers fan in New Plymouth, New Zealand. He is from Dallas originally, but lives in New Zealand. And he says, earlier this year, the Rangers had the most futile streak I can remember them having. In the bottom of the first inning on July 10th, the Rangers went up to nothing on the A's. The A's tied the score in

the top of the second. The next time the Rangers had a lead of any kind in a ball game was the top of the fifth on July 25th against the Astros. They promptly gave up two runs in the bottom of the fifth. I calculated that as 100 consecutive innings over 12 games of not having a lead of any kind. Calculation errors are my own, Patrick says. Even during the Orioles' 19-game losing streak earlier this year, the O's had a lead at some point in the game multiple times. Is this the longest streak any team has had of not having a lead? And this is what I've been saying recently about fans of one team noticing things

that go unnoticed by people who watch baseball on a national level or pay attention to other teams. I was not really aware of this string of futility. I was very aware of the Diamondbacks losing a ton of games or the Orioles losing a ton of games, but because the Rangers losing streak did not quite reach that point, I was not as aware that they had not had a lead for such an incredibly long time. It was covered, as you might expect, by Rangers writers, but I was not reading a ton of Rangers coverage at the time. to frequent StatBlast consultant Ryan Nelson, and he did his usual magic, and he says it was a record probably, kind of, depending on your definition. He says, first, I wanted to note that I double-checked, and I believe that the recent streak for the Rangers

was actually 99 innings over 12 games. The 100th inning was the one where the Rangers took the lead, so they had a lead in that inning. Additionally, that is a streak of 10 full games with no lead. I checked both of these to see if they were records. This Rangers streak is at least the second longest streak in MLB since 1900, and maybe the longest based on if you feel the possible longest streak should count. The streak in question involves the 2007 Nationals, who had a streak, maybe, of 108 innings and 11 full games without a lead.

But this streak has some technicalities. First, it stretches over two seasons, starting with the September 29, 2006 loss to the Mets and continuing into the early days of the 2007 season. This may disqualify it in your eyes, but if it doesn't, consider caveat two, the Nationals won a game in their streak. This is because they won a game in which at no point they led, but walked off in the ninth. So there was no retro sheet game state where the Nationals had the lead since the game was instantly over once the run scored, but they have the lead in the historic box score. In my eyes, I think this eliminates it, but maybe I'm alone in that. No, I think it does. I think the combination of those two things. Yeah. Yeah. So outside of that, Ryan continues, this Rangers streak is undoubtedly the longest in both categories, beating out the 1924 Boston Braves, 94 innings and nine games.

In fact, outside of the questionable Nat streak, this would be the longest of the millennium by far. 2005 Padres coming in next with a 75 inning streak including seven full games now I went on to ask Ryan about the version of the streak where you're not leading at the end of an inning just to differentiate it from the version where you maybe are leading in the top of the inning but then you lose the lead in the bottom of the inning. So Ryan says, if you look over multiple seasons, the 1917 Pirates got up to 130 complete innings without having a lead. So the 1916 Pirates ended with 103, and then they started off the next year

with three straight games without a lead. And then in a single season, the 1963 Cleveland team got to 118. So the 1916 Pirates at 103 would be next. So the 2021 Rangers would be the new second place. So I should note that Elias seems to have looked into this at the time too and got some slightly different results, and got some slightly different results, which is curious because Ryan has double and triple checked here and has sent me the work, and I will put it online as usual. But Elias is claiming that there were longer streaks or that the 1916 Pirates and the 1932 Red Sox had 103 inning streaks, which would be longer than the Rangers' 99 inning streak. But according to Ryan's check, that does not seem to be the case. So I guess you can all come to your own conclusions.

But it certainly seems to be that this was, if not the longest streak of not having a lead, certainly very, very close to it. And I did not actually even notice at the time, though I'm sure Rangers fans were well aware of it. I mean, they were noticing all the way in New Zealand. Exactly. Man, it is striking. We have these teams that we think of as being you know paragons of futility and they're still ones that surprise you sometimes yeah it's like yeah we all know about the orioles

but right yeah the rangers are just skating by here they're uh trying to avoid their hundredth loss as we are recording here on monday they are still stuck on 99, which in a normal year, that would be really bad. And it is really bad, but it's not Orioles bad or Diamondbacks bad. So, but for at least a span of 12 games or so, they were worse than the Orioles or Diamondbacks ever were, and possibly worse than any team ever was. I mean, that is tough to play 12 games without holding a lead at any point, without even just scoring a run in the top of the first or something. No, just nothing. Just always perpetually behind. That is rough. But thank you for the question to Patrick and to Ryan for the research and to Dylan for coming on and

joining us for this episode and also telling us a little bit about your life and career. We really appreciate it. Yeah, thanks for having me. And is there anything you would care to plug or a Twitter account or a photo gallery or anywhere people can find your work other than searching the Getty Archive? Yeah, sure. If anyone is into Instagram and Twitter, surprisingly, even as a photographer, I'm not super into Instagram. I mean, I post, but I'm not a big on it, but if you would like to, um, my Instagram handle is just my full name. It's at D Y L A N B U E L L. And then my Twitter handle again, not super active, but feel free to follow me anyway, is, uh, Dylan D Y L A N photog P H O T O G. All right. We will link to those.

Thanks again, Dylan. Thank you. That will do it for today. Thanks, as always, for listening. You can be like Dylan Buell and support Effectively Wild on Patreon by going to patreon.com slash effectively wild. The following five listeners have already signed up and pledged some small monthly amount to help keep the podcast going and get themselves access to some perks, such as being a guest on an email show. And, of course, to help us keep the podcast ad-free, Jason Brooks, Tom Rezzo, Andy, Tim Morton, and Joe Camerata. 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 Spotify and other podcast platforms. Keep your questions and comments for me and Meg coming via email at podcastwithfangrafts.com or via the Patreon messaging system if you are a supporter. Thanks to Dylan Higgins for his editing assistance, and we will be back with another episode soon. Talk to you then. We are now at Upper Session Road But I can't stand losing again