Effectively Wild: A FanGraphs Baseball Podcast - Effectively Wild Episode 2033: Need-to-Know Bases

Episode Date: July 15, 2023

Ben Lindbergh and Meg Rowley banter about the 2024 regular-season schedule, the baseball relevance of a study about humans’ hunger for useless information, and the storylines they’re most looking forward to following over the remainder of the season, then (35:58) answer emails about a total solar eclipse during a Guardians game, sliding into a base […]

Well, it's moments like these that make you ask, How can you not be pedantic about baseball? If baseball were different, how different would it be? On the case with light rippin', all analytically Cross-check and compile, find a new understanding Not effectively, why the can you not be pedantic? Yes, when it comes to baseball, how can you not be pedantic? Yes, when it comes to baseball, how can you not be pedantic? Hello and welcome to episode 2033 of Effectively Wild, a Fangraphs baseball podcast brought to you by our Patreon supporters.

I'm Meg Rowley of Fangraphs and I am joined once more from the road by Ben Lindberg. Wait, that implies that you're once more on the road. I'm still on the road. Once more on the road, I am joined by Ben Lindberg. Wait, that implies that you're once more on the road. I'm still on the road. Once more on the road, I am joined by Ben Lindberg. Yes, that's one that works better. That one works better right now, maybe, than Sun Allowed. I'm playing the final game of a road series, shall we say. And then I will return to the valley of the Maybe on Fire from the Sun.

Right, yes. Can't wait to get back there. Yeah, I'm sure. We'll return to the valley of the maybe on fire from the sun, you know? Right. Yes. Can't wait to get back there. Yeah, I'm sure. But I do have some good news for you. What's that? The 2024 MLB schedule was announced. Yeah, I saw.

And one little tidbit that didn't get a ton of attention but I thought you would enjoy is that for the first time in a few years, the regular season will be ending on September 29th, which means that we will be able to talk about October. October baseball. And have it actually be. Unambiguous. The playoffs. Yeah. Yeah.

This is great. Ben, it didn't escape my notice. Here to tell you, I said, ha ha, October baseball. We're back, boys. All right. Well, no caveats or asterisks needed. No pedantic clarifications about when we say so-and-so is October bound, even though every team is playing regular season games in October. That will not be the case next season. So we'll all be spared

that horrible trial. I'm sure it bothers everyone as much as it bothers you. You know, I imagine on the one hand that readers care probably less than writers or editors do about the small amount of ambiguity that is created by that creep into the first weekend, week of October. But on the other hand, we have to care because a couple of people really do care. And so I'm glad that we will be spared that bit of confusion. I think the low-key best part of the off-season calendar is when we crest over New Year's Day. And now we can unambiguously say last season. You know, everyone knows what we mean. We mean last year. We mean the season that occurred.

Yeah, great relief. Yeah, last year. Whereas in November, you're like, do you mean the most recent championship season or do you mean the season that happened before that? You know, so often we are spared silliness because unlike, say, you know, the NFL or the NBA or the NHL, our seasons don't straddle years. Yes, which is a great thing, I think. I think it's one of the underrated aspects of baseball that we don't have to hyphenate. We don't have to have any kind of, you know, do you mean it was that year or that year? It's pretty straightforward.

Very straightforward. Doesn't create confusion. No, like what Super Bowl are you referring to? What season is it in reference to? We're not messing with any of that nonsense. But for a little while in the off season, I have to be really on my guard when I'm editing people to be like, what year do you mean?

That's a much more irritating exercise than this. But this is a nice little bit of relief, so I'll take it. Yeah, while we're being pedantic, I guess I should have said dash instead of hyphen, but we don't have to worry about whether it's a dash or a hyphen because, again, it's just one year when we talk about baseball season. So, yeah, when people say Happy New Year to me, I say, yeah, it is a Happy New Year because now we can say last season and everyone will know which season I'm referring to. Clean and clear. I read a study that I think is quite relevant to this high stakes conversation we just had.

relevant to this high-stakes conversation we just had. This just appeared in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B, which is a biological science research journal. And I read a write-up of it at science.org. You're not a subscriber? I'm just following the science to science.org. And the headline says, Humans Will Trade Pain for Useless Information. Following the science to science.org. And the headline says, humans will trade pain for useless information. In new psychology study, participants choose physical pain over the pain of not knowing.

And I think this explains a lot maybe about our interest in baseball and the existence of this podcast and the fact that anyone listens to it and the phenomenon of fun facts. So basically, people will endure a lot of discomfort to acquire information that is useless, essentially. So here's the study. Basically, this researcher showed participants a series of coin flips, not unlike a series of baseball games, I suppose, in which each side of the coin came with a different small monetary reward. But the participants weren't told which side came with which prize, and the researcher offered them a choice. They could immediately learn the payouts of the different sides in exchange for receiving a brief, painful, but ultimately harmless flash of heat to their forearm. What the heck? Crucially, this knowledge had no effect on the outcome of the coin flip, which was random. Participants would earn the same amount of money regardless of

whether they knew the values ahead of time. So there was really no reason for them to know. They could have just waited to find out and see the coin flip and find out what the reward was. But they wanted to know in advance, even though it wouldn't change anything to know that in advance. So at the lowest pain setting, participants were willing to endure the flash of heat in about 75% of the trials. Their willingness increased as larger amounts of money were on the line. As the intensity of the heat flash ramped up, fewer and fewer participants were willing to endure it. Well, that's good. Still, in nearly half of the trials, participants accepted even the most severe level of pain.

What the heck? This willingness to endure pain in exchange for non-instrumental information, useless essentially, may stem from a deep-seated aversion to uncertainty, the researcher says, to the point that some people are willing to go through physical discomfort for a few scraps of solid information. Not knowing is really painful, he says. Wow. I don't know what to make of that, Ben, other than we all need more therapy than we're

getting, probably. I mean, this is why people are Royals fans, probably, right? They endure some amount of pain because they want to know the information. They want to know who won the game. Although, in this case, it would be like knowing who won the game before the game happened. I mean, I guess that would be useful if you could then bet on it, let's say. But I don't think that there was a market for these coin flips here. So it was just getting a heads up about whether it would be heads up or tails up, I guess. And the researcher says, the experiment demonstrates that information's value is not always tied to its usefulness.

So that's, again, that's why Effectively Wild is still going here, I think, after our 11th anniversary as a podcast is next week. And I think that we depend heavily on the fact that information's value is not always tied to its usefulness. If people were only tuning in to get useful information, I think they would have abandoned us a long time ago. But the researcher says humans value information even when they cannot use it to change outcomes.

What is striking here is that people are willing to endure pain for such information. I don't, I'm like really having to sit with what this means for your understanding of yourself that you read this

and you were like, that reminds me of my podcast, you know? Yeah, yeah. This researcher plans to have people voluntarily subject themselves to minor torture, even more so. He plans to continue testing the limits of our desire to avoid uncertainty. For instance, he wants to look at whether people would be willing to undergo not just pain but also stress in exchange for non-instrumental information. Again, I think – Oh, yeah.

That's fandom in a nutshell, right? Yeah. Yeah. Right. Additionally, he wants to switch around some of the variables. For instance, if people are about to receive a flash of pain, would they be willing to pay money to find out how severe it will be? Wow. I – I'm just – I mean mean I guess that this is like in some strange ways a welcome step forward from some of the experiments that were done like in the 50s and 60s where it's like how much pain will you inflict on other people?

And like those were pretty – some of them very scientifically dubious. So, you know, I don't think we need to, like, harken back. But I'd rather people be in a position to say, here's what I will endure than, like, what will this person I've never met theoretically endure? They weren't actually hurting anyone in, like, Milgram's experiments, but they thought they did. And then, like, you know, then they were sometimes kind of nasty. So, man, I don't know, then. At least people are opting into their own pain. So that's nice.

It's that how much pain would you be willing to inflict on someone else to acquire useless information? Probably even more. But fortunately, they did not study that. Yeah, geez. So we're about to acquire some more information of dubious utility about baseball because the All-Star break is over and they're going to play games again. So we're going to find out some stuff. And all the sites have been running their articles headlined, you know, the top 10 storylines of the remaining 44.2% of the season. They've all expressed it that way after they

heard my gripe about the first half and second half, right? So over the remaining 44.2% of the season, which is just a good headline, just SEO. Yeah, that's really SEO friendly. Yeah. I edited our top 10 second half storylines piece at The Ringer written by my pal Zach Kram. And I did not attempt to inflict that headline on our readers. I went with second half, you know, because I'm a reasonable guy. And I understand that other people don't care about the first half, second half distinction and the fact that we're more than halfway through the season. So I did what was best for readers and for The Ringer. Yeah. And for the reader. Yeah.

And for Zach, I think. And I am still kind of curious about what you're most interested in. We did talk a couple of weeks ago about our first half storylines or what to find the first half of the season after the actual end of the first half of the season. That was on episode 2027. So that wasn't that long ago. And a lot of the second half storylines, the 44.2% storylines are just kind of continuations of the ones that we talked about before, right?

Like Shohei Otani has been amazing. Ronald Acuna has been amazing. And Louisa Rice has been amazing, et cetera. Can they keep being amazing, right? So it's sort of the same conversation, I guess. But what are you looking forward to finding out about at the possible price of some pain and stress? Well, I guess the Seattle Mariners. I don't know.

Maybe I do see myself in this whole thing. I don't know. Maybe I do see myself in this whole thing. I think – well, I think that there are a couple of things that I'm interested in. I mean like there are – this is probably double dipping. But to start, like I'm curious what of the American League wheat will separate itself from the chaff, wheat from the chaff. That's the expression, right? Definitely applied to baseball teams on the regular.

Because, you know, there's the domination in the east, but there has been movement among some of the teams further down who are competing for wildcard spots. Like, Houston is in a wildcard position now, and you know, there's been movement, and there are teams like the Mariners who are currently

out of it, but aren't, like, so far out of a final wild card spot that, you know, maybe, Ben, maybe. Who could say? You know, maybe they will acquire some of the Cardinals that are apparently prepared to be on the move, right? That was reported this week. So I'm curious to see sort of how the bottom end of the wild card race potentially reshuffles itself in the coming weeks, although it might end up just being exactly what it is. So I'm curious to see what that looks like. And this is where it's perhaps double dipping, but I wonder if we will see any of those teams that we talked about as sort of potential second half risers that might really meet their actual expectations from preseason,

are any of those clubs going to take a step forward, right? Will we see a run by the Padres or the Mets that sort of launches them into, you know, if not division champion contention, at least into wildcard contention? So I'm curious to see how that goes. Let's see. Do you want to respond to that or should I keep going, Ben? No, I think that's a good one. Yeah, I mean, there are a number of just playoff race, pennant race sort of questions I'm interested in from the good teams to the bad teams, right? Like the Central. So specifically the AL Central. We lump together the Central sometimes.

I think the AL Central is kind of in a class of its own at this point. The NL Central is not great, but the AL Central is in its own tier. It's a different kind of bad. Yeah. And you have the intrigue of, will a team win this division with a losing record or not a winning record? Probably not, but it is certainly conceivable that that could happen because the first place team currently has a 45 and 45 record. That would be the Guardians. So that's something to look out for. And also, Rob Means wrote about this at Baseball Perspectives this week, but the Central is in the running for worst division of all time as measured by performance against outside of the division teams, right? And it's in the running against a previous AL Central team from like five years ago.

That was the worst. Again, the AL Central being bad is not new. But that kind of interests me in just a rubbernecking sort of way. of interest me in just a rubber necking sort of way. And then, you know, is there at the end of the season, is there any conversation about not trying to win as much as you might like to, to set up a matchup with a central team? Or does that not really come into play because the other teams have to win all the way to make sure that they get to the playoffs at all? So that's kind of interesting to me. But then also, as we talked about before, just like, can some of these teams hold off the challengers? Like, can the Rangers hold off

the Astros? Right. And, you know, just generally, I guess the teams that are the surprise teams so far, can they keep it up? Right. Yeah. these teams that if you look at, say, base runs record, maybe they're playing a little bit over their heads. But then again, they have improved their rosters as the seasons have gone on. So they're different teams today than they were at the start of the season. So, yeah, I think those two and, you know, like the old guard, right? Those two and, you know, like the old guard, right, the perennial winners and big spenders and teams that have been on great runs over the past several seasons, the Dodgers, the Astros, the Yankees. Does any of them end up winning its division? Does do they all make the playoffs?

Does some of them miss the playoffs? Is this officially the changing of the guard or are they going to manage to stumble across the finish line and be part of the playoff field again? So, yeah, a lot of that actually interests me. It will be deeply funny if we end up with a playoff field that is just like a perfect combination of ascendant and unusual teams, teams exceeding expectation to various degrees, right? Like, I don't think that anyone thought the Rangers were going to win the West. There were people who looked at them as sort of a trendy wildcard pick because of their offseason additions, even if the projections saw them as still having holes and not quite being there yet, right? But it would be funny if we get like, you know, the Rangers who were like big spenders, but not yet expected to compete, and the Reds who were not big spenders and not expected to compete, but are being bolstered by

this, you know, young group of prospects and recently graduated prospects who have come up. If we end up with that, and then like the Braves and the Dodgers. That's like a kind of cool mix of things, right? I think we don't, we definitely don't want everything to be chalk, but you don't want everything to be totally upended because a lot of the teams that have been good for a really long time, like they're still fun and dynamic to watch even if we like there to be variation and we want teams to be able to cycle through and really be competitive and we don't want it to stagnate. Like you want, I think, a mix of, hey, here's, you know, here are the Dodgers, here are the Rays, here are the Braves, right? And then, you know, we're going to spice it up and have the Reds and have the Rangers and, you know, have some surprises there. I guess, you know, I will be realistic but disappointed

if indeed the D-backs cannot rally back and retake the NL West. But, you know, they're going to be a playoff team in all likelihood here. So that's very exciting. That's good, you know? Yeah, and can the Mets and Padres or one of them salvage its season, right? That's interesting, too. And there are some other interesting teams kind of going for things that are of interest to me, at least, like the Marlins and their one-run record, right? They're in the running for the best record in one-run games of all time or maybe the best showing for a team with a negative run

differential if they end up actually being outscored on the season, that sort of thing, which is maybe a little more niche, but still kind of compelling to me. No, I think the MLB social media team has a placard ready for that. Yeah, I'm sure. They've done that graphic design work in advance. Yeah, how low can the A's go? We haven't focused on that as much because they're ahead of the 1962 Mets pace,

but they are still certainly on track to blow away the record for the worst run differential. So that's something to be interested in, I guess. That's something. You did it. And look, like, almost every division now,

other than the NL East, I guess, like the first and second place teams are separated by, like, almost every division now other than the NL East, I guess, like, the first and second place teams are separated by, what, like two games or less, right? I mean, they're interesting playoff races. Like, almost everyone's in it, which I think makes the trade deadline pretty intriguing. I guess you could say it makes it less intriguing than usual because it just doesn't seem like there's going to be that much action. But then one way or another, there's always some sort of move that gets made that I wasn't anticipating. So what happens over the next few weeks? Does anyone fall out of it? Just like you look at the market for hitters, especially, and it's like, who is available that you would really be excited about, right? Like there are a couple of nationals.

I mean it's just – it's not – I guess the Cardinals are the most interesting entrant there because theoretically Paul Goldschmidt, right? I mean it could happen and they have some pitchers to deal potentially. They've been pretty open, Moselec, about the fact that they are going to be looking to deal potentially with an eye toward 2024. And there's a little streak at stake. We were reminded by listener Alex back on episode 1354. We had a stat blast about the streak that the Cardinals had of finishing ahead of the Pirates, which is still active 23 seasons now. And if they could get one more, it would be the longest streak of a team finishing ahead of a division rival or prior to divisions, a league rival for a string of seasons.

But they are a few games behind. They are still projected to finish ahead of the Pirates, but the trade deadline may have something to say about that. That maybe makes it a little more compelling. And there are pitchers, right? And there are a number of teams still with interesting decisions about what tack to take at the deadline. And that will all get sorted out over the next few weeks, right? Like, what do the Cubs do? What do the Mets and the Padres do? What do the Red Sox do? What do the Mariners do, as you mentioned? And of course, what do the angels do? And I know it's still quite a long shot that Shohei Otani will get traded, but it's more conceivable than it was at one time. I don't know. John Heyman writing at The Post about a week ago, he said angels people seem to be leaving open the slight possibility of an Otani blockbuster.

He said apparently they're telling folks they will know a lot more in the next two or three weeks. Well, we all will, I suppose. But obviously, things have not gone great for them since then. If things continue not to go great for them,

well, maybe, right? Like about a month ago or less, Perry Manassi and Angel's GM, when he was asked about that, he just kept saying it was self-explanatory, right, what would happen with Otani. And maybe it's not anymore. I think he was implying that they weren't going to deal him. They probably still aren't going to deal him.

But there's at least the remote possibility. And even the remote possibility is compelling just because if it actually did happen, it would be an enormous story. compelling just because if it actually did happen, it would be an enormous story. You know, one thing you do when you're an editor of a baseball site is like you do try to anticipate what that stuff is going to look like, because if you can guess correctly, you can have folks do a little bit of work on the front end and then make the day of the deadline less of a thrash, right? Because like if you feel strongly that Ohtani gets moved, well, then someone can pre-write that like here's what Shohei Ohtani is part of the Ohtani trade reaction piece, right? And you get a little pre-write work done.

But like you don't want to make people do work that's not going to be used. That's terrible because then people are annoyed. They're like, oh, well, I just did all this work and no one's ever going to see it. So I am very interested in this question. And I'm sure that our writers are also interested in this question. But I mean, like, I understand if you're both the GM of a team and a reporter covering that team, you have to ask the question, are you going to move your franchise cornerstone? Are you going to move prospects? Are you going to move the best player in baseball? You have to ask because if you don't, then you're not doing your job. But the answers

are never particularly revelatory, right? Because they want to leave open the possibility to do everything. They want to not foreclose any potential avenues. So they are always funny to me because it's like, well, what else is he going to say? Of course he's going to say, we might do it maybe, but probably not, but maybe potentially. Like, what else is he going to say? That's exactly what he's going to say. But you got to ask the question. So I get it. Jobs, man, they're weird. And I'm also sort of fascinated by the missing man, Aaron Judge, right? Because there were some rumors circulating that he'd be activated right after the break. But then Brian Cashman dashed those dreams.

He said there's no timetable for that. That Judge has more steps to take, literally and figuratively. He has to run the bases. He has to go to rehab games. Cashman said he will be back at some point in the second half. James Cashman said he will be back at some point in the second half, but it's been very hazy all along about when he'll be back and whether he'll be compromised by this toe injury that he got from running through a fence. And he might have to have off-season surgery if he's able to return, which is not what you want to hear about your literal giant who's in the first year of a nine-year deal and has to put a lot of weight on his feet and toes, right? So it's just watching the Yankees without Judge. They just look so hapless that I don't know if there's one player whose status is so important to his team

and to the playoff race in general, because the Yankees are, what, like a game out of the wildcard race, something like that right now? I think that's right, yeah. And without Judge, they just, they're pretty impotent. And they've already made a change at hitting coach, right? And if Judge doesn't return, if the Yankees miss the playoffs, does that endanger Aaron Boone? Does that endanger Brian Cashman as inconceivable as

that seems? I don't know. So will he or won't he be back and in what form? I mean, this is one of the most high profile players and most productive players in baseball. So his status and him just basically being on a milk carton right now, it's like, when will we see Aaron Judge again? That's a pretty big question. Yeah, it's amazing they were able to fit him on a milk carton because he's so big. Do they still put missing people on milk cartons? I don't know if they do milk carton kids anymore. I don't drink much milk anymore.

My wife drinks soy milk. I haven't seen any missing persons on the soy milk. I was just about to offer the bougiest possible answer to that question. They don't put them on the side of organic milk, Ben. So I don't really know. But put me in prison. I think that you – it's so funny that you say like will they – would Cashman be in danger? Because on the one hand, it does seem inconceivable that he will do anything but – and I mean this in a good way.

What I mean is – what I'm about to say I mean in a good way. Assuming he lives a very long life and stays in the job. Like on some level, you just assume that Brian Cashman's going to die in that chair, right? That he will forever be the GM of the Yankees. But the fan base is so quick to say, fire everyone every season. But on some level, I'm like, well, isn't his job always imperiled? I mean, and managers more so than general managers with that franchise, right? You know, we have seen managers come and go in the course of our baseball lives as it relates to the Yankees.

But on some level, it's like, well, of course Brian Cashman's in danger. People are calling into radio stations all across the tri-state area calling for his head. I don't know that they're doing that, but it feels like a safe assumption to make. So on the one hand, it's like, well, how could he possibly go? But I don't know, maybe. I would imagine that Boone would end up being the sacrificial lamb there more than Cashman, but maybe cooler heads prevail. I don't know.

It just is kind of a bummer that this guy who was playing so well, it's like Judge was having such a great season before that injury. It's just, you know, sometimes the wall gets you. Like, that's just how it goes. And you have a bad back half as a result of that. And, you know, it turns out that guys decline once they're into their 30s and Josh Donaldson can't be an answer. Well, I don't know. It just happens. So I don't know. It'll be interesting to see what they do.

But my instinct, my guess is that they will probably not end up doing all that much at the end of the season in a reactionary way. But, you know, who knows? Sometimes you have to satisfy the callers. You got to satisfy the people, the vague people. It's sort of amusing, though, how unsatisfied they've been, like the most reactive portions of the Yankees fanbase who are always calling for change,

perhaps conditioned by the George Steinbrenner era, when change was constant and there was too much change, but now you have Brian Cashman, who is, I think, officially now the longest tenured GM with one team ever. Yeah, he has to be, right?

And also never makes a midseason coaching change until just now. It's like there's not a lot of turnover when it comes to the Yankees, which on the whole has probably served them well, I think. But I guess there could potentially come a time when you feel a little too safe and you get complacent. Maybe you have too much job security. I don't know. But yeah, they have been thwarted at every turn. The Yankees Twitter people who are constantly trending about calling for those people. It's like whether they're right or wrong, it is kind of amusing to see the constant cries just go completely unheeded. Yeah, they're like, no, no, we're not interested in that.

Thank you. They have a point about like how maybe not being the most urgent when it comes to spending and responding to the concerns of the fan base. Like earlier this season, Steinbrenner was like, you know, I don't know what they're mad about. Like we're a winning team or whatever. And it's true. They are always a winning team. So there's something to be said for never having a bad season. But obviously they do expect more.

And I think it's understandable that they expect more because Hal's dad always expected more and signaled that everyone else should expect more. So it's not like those expectations come out of nowhere. They come from Halstein Britter's dad. So he should understand why those expectations are as high as they are. Yeah, I don't think that it's particularly surprising, but it doesn't mean that it's any less funny to watch. I'm not trying to delight in anybody's disappointment for this season. I get it. But it is a funny bit of business. Sometimes you're just like, wow, you guys, I think you're

okay. I really do think you're okay. Like when it comes down to it, I think you're doing fine. Can I offer another thing I'm excited about for the second half? Sure. I, you know, we have this really great, fun group of young guys who have come on. We've talked about them a lot. And I'm just, you know, I'm curious to see how they sustain and adapt and whether they're able to do both of those things.

You know, you said that the judge is probably the single most important player in terms of determining a playoff race. And I think that that's probably true. But if there is a second to that, it might be L.A. Daily Crews. And like, what is he able to continue to do? Because, you know, he's certainly not the only young, exciting guy on that Reds team, but he's easily the most exciting guy on any team, maybe, potentially. And it does feel like, you know, their fortunes will go in whatever direction he takes them.

And so we have seen him start to have to adjust as, you know, pitchers have started to figure him out. And it seems like he's maybe able to do that. And so I'm curious how those guys go. Like, how do they go? And are, you know, the young guys on other contending teams able to push their club ahead? You know, do we see, you know, the Diamondbacks be able to continue forward if Carroll stays healthy? You know, can they push to displace the Dodgers again? And do all of the various young Orioles kind of coalesce around the guys who are already there and

keep their fortunes going. So I think that there's a really exciting youth movement to continue to monitor and I'm excited to do that because some of these guys, Ben, they're so talented and they're so fun. So many of them are so

fun. And so I hope that they are able to do it. You know, not that I have particularly skin in the game when it comes to any of their teams, but to be able to see them perform well and bring their brand of baseball to the forefront. It's pretty cool. Like imagine, imagine Ben, a postseason just full of fast guys. We're going to have a fast guy postseason if these standings persist. We're going to have Acuna, not a new fast guy, but getting to do fast guy stuff. We're going to have Carroll.

We're going to have De La Cruz. We got all these fast guys. We got the Orioles who just run and run. They're a team that runs. And I'm sure that you and Eric maybe talked about this in your draft group, but having Enrique Bradfield Jr. go to the Orioles and, like, they're going to be like, hey, go run. That's going to be – it's just so fun. What a fun thing.

That's not a this year thing, obviously. I'm not confused about that, Ben. But it is a future fast guy on a good team. I like all these fast guy teams. It's great. Yeah, it's great. Yeah. Especially in this season that encourages fast guys to do fast guy things. And when will we see Yuri Perez again and what manner will he return? Yeah, I wouldn't be shocked if we saw Ellie have an extended slump at some point, if things kind of caught up with him in the second half. There's still some rough edges to that game, but not worried about him long term, obviously. And the mad dash from last weekend that we talked about,

I was listening to C. Trent Rosecrans on Hang Up and Listen, Slate Sports Podcast, and he was making the comp to Billy Hamilton. Obvious comp, I guess. Both reds, both super exciting and did incredible things when they came up and were super speedy. And it's true that Trent said

they were referred to as Billy runs, right? When he would do one of those things, like, you know, he would score from some base on some play that usually you don't score on, right? But he was never really a very good player, right? I mean, you know, he offered a or even starting, but was never a good hitter, of course, and never had the ability to, in addition to making these extraordinary runs, then also hit balls, you know, 480 feet or whatever, right? So to be able to combine the Billy Hamilton runs with everything else that he can do, the throws and the hits, Hamilton runs with everything else that he can do, the throws and the hits.

It's pretty special. So yeah, I am looking forward to the summer of Ellie continuing. And another thing I'm interested in seeing is whether in the remainder of the season, some of the guys who got the biggest or the longest free agent deals last offseason can live up to the high expectations that were set. As we said, Judge has been good when he's been healthy. His problem has been availability. But think of some of the other high-profile signees. Jacob deGrom, Carlos Correa, Trey Turner, Xander Bogarts, Carlos Rodon,

Andrew Penitenti, Wilson Contreras, Justin Verlander, Jameson Tyone, Josh Bell, Chris Bassett. A lot of sort of disappointing pre-All-Star break performances. The only guys who haven't been bad to meh or have missed time are maybe Brandon Nimmo, Kodaisenga, Dansby Swanson, I guess, although he's on the IL now. So I wonder whether some of those players will finish strong. So just a lot to look forward to. And another thing to look forward to is a few emails here.

So let's do some emails. And then I've got one stat blast for the end. So here is a question from Now I Only Want to Triumph, Patreon supporter, who says, the 2024 schedule came out and something extremely effectively wildcore was brought to my attention. A number of people have noticed this. The Guardians 2024 home opener is scheduled for April 8th against the White Sox in, of course, Cleveland. On that very same day, Cleveland is projected to be subject to three minutes and 49 seconds of totality darkness at 3.13 p.m. Eastern

Daylight Time as a result of the total solar eclipse working its way across North America. Cool. I'm quite confident in that prediction. We've got that whole classical mechanics thing down pat since Newton, so I am pretty confident that that will come to pass. And the question is, assuming a 105 start time, which isn't unreasonable, the teams are flying in from Minnesota and Kansas City Sunday before, the game should be in the seventh or eighth inning when totality sets in. Can we expect another effectively wild eclipse ball meetup? Moreover, if a team wanted to be sneaky and abuse Oh, my gosh. So, yeah, this is a reference to the Effectively Wild meetup almost six years ago when there was a previous solar eclipse and we went to the Salem-Kaiser Volcanoes game in Oregon.

And everyone was there and it was a great time and very memorable for me as an astronomy nerd just to get to see that and also at a baseball game. I believe, though, that eclipse, that wasn't in the path of any big league games that time. I think there were four minor league games affected, but no major league games. And it certainly does appear that this Guardians game will be taking place when there's a total solar eclipse. So that will be fun. We have no plans for a meetup or anything. This will be a higher profile event, maybe a little less charming in that it's a major league team and not a minor league team. But I look forward to watching that play out. I assume that they will just stop the game briefly, right? Which is what

happened at the minor league games. You didn't just play through it and make the best of it. But yeah, that will be the rare total solar eclipse delay. Yeah. I imagine that they'll do a whole big like promotion, right? Like I'm sure they'll do some cool in ballpark this or that and like give out, I don't know, like have like a T-shirt or something. You know, it seems like you got to have your promo department kind of working through your options now because you could come up with something really cool with that much notice, I would think. What a neat thing.

The idea of traveling close to opening day makes me want to like take a nap. So I don't know if I'm going to be able to make it to Cleveland. Cleveland can be surprisingly hard to get to from the West. Like those flights are not always frequent. That's my memory of trying to get there for all-star stuff a couple of years ago. I had to connect through Vegas and it was on Spirit Airlines, Ben. I had to, that, it was, it wasn't the best, you know, like it was not my favorite travel experience I've ever had. I don't know if I'd be able to fly direct from Phoenix,

but I think that like that would be so cool. They'll definitely stop the game. They'll just stop the game and everyone will sit there. Oh, and it's going to be so cold. Yeah, it really got chilly. Yeah, that was my dominant memory of the Eclipse game, which I went to Oregon recently for my cousin's college graduation. And we drove past the ballpark on the way back to the airport in Portland. It's an indie ball team now.

They're not an affiliated team, Kaiser. But, yeah, it got so cold. Do you remember how cold it got? it was so weird and you're like the sun's only been plugged out for a little bit why is it so cold?

the sun is hot it turns out you notice when it goes out briefly yeah might be advocating for the sun going out for a while

in the next couple of days just every now and then not permanently that would be worse than global warming but also if we could just dim it maybe or you know turn it off for a few minutes couple of days. Just every now and then, not permanently. That would be worse than global warming. But also, if we could just dim it maybe or, you know, turn it off for a few minutes here or there, that wouldn't be so bad. I got 117 in the forecast.

The low, 91. Oh, man. What? It's a dry heat. Oh, boy. We did get an email from listener Byron, not the Byron we interviewed last time, who wrote to us about an interesting ending to a game that this made me think of. It was a Portland Pickles game, the collegiate wood bat in Portland, Oregon. And he wrote, my wife and I went to a game last month that I think is a contender for weirdest ending.

It took 75 minutes to complete two innings with the home Pickles down 7-0, then two and a half more hours for them to tie it up at 9 in the eighth. With a 7.05 start time, we're at about 11 p.m. and we start watching the live stream from home. A few more innings and as we get closer to midnight, the announcer starts referring to needing a variance from the public parks department to be able to play past midnight. They get a 15-minute extension on the lights turning off and proceed with the 12th inning. At midnight, the lights stay on, but something else happens. The sprinklers go off. Oh, my gosh.

They were set to go on. And then, instead of suspending the game, they spend about 10 minutes turning the sprinklers off. Then they start playing again until the inevitable happens at 12.15. The lights went out. We are less than a minute away from Will the Lights Go Out. I love this so much. Pitch on the way, outside, ball one. Oh, I like PDX Papermaker, hit the ball, and once it goes into play, hopefully the... Oh! Yeah!

I will link to the YouTube video because they were playing, and the lights just went out. It was like pitch black on the broadcast. And it was like mid-pitch, like the pitcher was about to deliver the ball. Oh my gosh. Then the lights went out. That's great. The comments on the YouTube video, someone asked, did the pitcher actually release the ball when the lights went out? And then the pitcher or someone purporting to be the pitcher answered in the YouTube comments and said, I was the pitcher.

Yes, I released it, and it hit the catcher in the chest plate. Oh, gosh. Yeah. I guess it could have been worse. Yeah, much worse. If we were going to get any hypotheticals about what would happen if they just randomly turned the lights out or the sun went out in the middle of the baseball game? I think it would suppress offense for one thing.

Yeah, and it might lead to a couple trips to the emergency room depending on how much of the flight of the path of the ball. What? You know what I mean. Definite safety hazard. I mean, I guess my initial inclination was that it would suppress offense. I think that is true if the pitcher were like mid-delivery or if the pitch were mid-flight. But I guess if the pitcher couldn't see the plate either, that would potentially not be so great, right? Like, I guess the pitcher just through sheer muscle memory might be able to throw a strike better than the hitter could make contact without seeing the ball. So probably the pitching would still be favored in that scenario. But you'd have a lot of walks and I guess a lot of strikeouts and not a whole lot of scoring. I don't think it would be bad baseball, but it wouldn't be so bad because no one would know what was happening because it would be pitch dark.

So, yeah, let's pause the game when the sun goes out. I think that is probably a good idea. All right. Question from Jeff in Santa Fe. I play second base on our beer league softball team. My range, as they say, is pretty limited. And in last night's game, there was a play where the runner beat the throw

while sliding into second base. Our field is variably maintained, and this slide kicked a ton of dirt into the air and onto the bag, which made me wonder if a runner kicked a huge pile of dirt onto a bag with a slide and was tagged, would they be off the base and be out? Could loose dirt around second base be a new exploit against an especially speedy base

stealing team? And I asked a question just to clarify, and he said he was thinking of like your slide causes the base to disappear under a pile of dirt. Thus, when you slide, you're not actually touching the base, just a mound of dirt. So is that like a hack for the offensive team? It's like you can't be tagged out or I guess it would be a hack for the defensive team, right? Because you can't be safe.

Because you can't ever establish that you're safe. Yes, you cannot touch the bag if the bag is covered in dirt. I think that they would call you safe if you were like on a pile of dirt on the bag. Like how big a pile of dirt are we talking about? I don't know. Big enough to cover the entire bag. But yeah, it's like a deep sliding pit sort of situation.

Yeah. I think that you would be able to say with good faith that you are on the base. you're occupying the base. Because it's not like, okay, so like think of a less extreme example. You know, the bases get dirty in the course of a game. And, you know, if your foot is on the bag and there is technically dirt between you and the bag, they're not like, well, sorry, you didn't do housekeeping before the slide, so you're out. I think they'd let you.

I mean, but like if it was like really tall. Yeah. If there was a small mountain, oh, maybe this is where we need the mole men, you know? Oh, yeah, right. Maybe this is an opportunity for the mole men to come in somehow. Spur a wonder there. Yeah. Yeah.

If you had like a sand trap right in front of the base, I think that would probably be banned because that would maybe be a safety hazard. Hazard, yes. But yeah, I mean, there are stories about like watering down the bases, right? If you have a speedy team, try to slow them down, have a little extra muddiness or dirt there.

So that sort of thing has happened. But if you took it to this extreme, to slow them down, have a little extra muddiness or dirt there. So that sort of thing has happened. But if you took it to this extreme, then I think the umps would probably be like, hey, groundskeepers, what are you doing here? Yeah, come fix this. Yeah. I think that a lot of our questions like this, if you're going to try to be sneaky and really like get the other team, I think subtlety is the order of the day, because if you're obvious, the umpire is just gonna be like, hey, we got to fix this thing

over here. And maybe they won't even attribute, you know, sneakiness to you. Maybe they'll just be like, you're sloppy, you know, stop being, you're being a bad housemate. You have not complied with the roommate contract. You need to clean up. They might not even think you're trying to pull one over on the other team. But I think if you're trying to do that, you got to be smooth. You know, you got to be cool. Because if you're obvious, then you're going to get got. Yeah. I mean, technically, none of us ever really touches anything on the quantum level because there's electron repulsion and our electrons repel electrons and whatever we're touching. So, you know, we're not actually touching

the chairs we're sitting in as we record this. We're hovering slightly infinitesimally above the chairs, right? And so no one ever actually touches the base and no one ever actually tags out a runner. Right. There's always just a tiny, tiny little bit of airspace there. But we allow that. Right. I mean, no one has ever, I don't think, protested the outcome of a game based on quantum physics and electron repulsion. Right. That probably would not get you out of anything. And it wouldn't help anyone because everyone really relies on the fiction that we're touching things and our senses report that we're touching things because they feel the electromagnetic resistance, I guess. And that's good enough for us. So I think that in the sense that we let that slide, we would probably not let this slide slide, I guess. Right.

But I guess you could say same principle, but different specifics. Right. But one of them makes you sound a lot more like a stoner than the other. Yeah. All right. Question from Jonathan. With runners on base and a ball in play, the TV broadcast usually switches to a tight shot of the nearest fielder tracking the ball. Meanwhile, viewers lack certainty of what the base runners are doing in real time.

On a ball into the outfield, for example, is the batter thinking of going for two? Or maybe an existing runner is rounding third and going for home. Who knows? Because so often the camera stays tight on the throw in and we have to settle for, say, catching a passing glimpse of a runner who has already slid past home a couple beats prior, the suspense of a run being scored is merely a suggestion that even the play-by-play announcer might describe as, oh, by the way. Why aren't broadcasts consistently leaning into even mild suspense that these plays might offer by showing a wide shot that captures both the ball and the runner or runners in a single frame? offer by showing a wide shot that captures both the ball and the runner or runners in a single frame, or for fear of too wide a shot making gameplay indiscernible, pop the runners into a picture-in-picture in the corners of the screen, or if technology permits, indicate

the real-time location of the runners with simple geometric avatars on an overlaid graphical diamond. Please help me understand why MLB broadcasts are edited in such a boxed-in way I can't unsee it. And we did talk about an instance when the Mets and their very filmic broadcast crew and director earlier this year, they did experiment with showing the runner sort of superimposed over the play. So it wasn't a picture-in-picture. It was just that it was like partly transparent and you could see both happening at once. And it was kind of cool. It was very cool. Yeah. I don't know if they've done

that regularly or if any other broadcast teams have adopted it. I don't know if it's difficult to pull off technically, but I would agree with Jonathan's critique here that if there were a way to do it, it would be cool. Like in baseball video games, for instance, you can see a little dot or square or something that represents the runner typically circling the bases. And you'd think that we could probably do something like that with StatCast potentially, right? Like, I mean, they used to sometimes show the positioning of the fielders if there was a shift on. Sometimes you would be able to see that. They would try to convey that, and I always appreciated that effort.

So I think if we could do something with StatCast so that you could at least see the position of the runner on the diamond diagram, or I guess a picture-in-picture, I'd be okay with that or the more artsy, superimposed way. But it's true. We really do tolerate a lack of information. And as we covered earlier, we like having information even if it's useless. So when it's useful, we'd endure a lot of pain. We would watch the Mets in order to see the superimposed runner, right? And I mean, I would like to see that more. There are various solutions because we don't know when the ball is hit, like where the fielder started the play typically. So you sometimes miss the initial positioning. And then, yeah, you just kind of have to guess and speculate and extrapolate about how close the play is going to be, I guess

there's still suspense. Like if you usually know like, oh, there's going to be a play at the plate, right? You don't always know if it's going to be close or not, but there's suspense of knowing like, okay, he might score on this, right? And maybe it would be enhanced by getting a better glimpse of what's going on. Yeah, I have, especially in the last couple of years, found myself often quite distracted by how they're cut up, how the broadcasts are cut up. I think, you know, at times I have wondered if they, and this is less relevant now in the Pitchcom calm era obviously but like i i have wondered if they

have tried to at times do close-ups on players faces as a way of obscuring when a catcher is putting down signs to help mitigate sign stealing and i don't know if that's paranoia on my part or if there was some mandate given around it. But it did feel like we were getting the catcher putting down signs less often pre-pitchcom, post-banging scheme than we had been. And I found that frustrating because it's nice to be able to see what they're signaling because then you at the viewer at home can help to, it helps you anticipate what the pitch is going to be, right? So there's that piece of it. But yeah yeah, there's a lot of, like, close cuts in on guys' faces. And I imagine that they are trying to build, like, dramatic narrative tension.

But sometimes I'm like, I'd like to see where everyone is standing on their little feets. So let me see them, please. So, yeah, I'm with you. It would be nice to find, you know, the Mets thing. Like, it was cool. It did kind of feel like, you know, an 80s portrait studio at times, right? But, like, I do like them trying to find some solutions so that you can more accurately gauge, like, where guys are and what they're up to.

I think it is better that way. So, yeah, I share this frustration and frequently wish that they were cut together a little bit differently than they are. And baseball TV viewers on the whole have bigger screens than they used to and higher definition screens. There's more real estate. You could stick something in a picture in picture and it would be bigger and clearer than it would have

at one time. And of course, you know, everyone's got a zillion cameras everywhere, so you're not going to miss out on that angle. So, yeah, I would like to see a little more information conveyed, a little more experimentation. But then again, I was advocating for seeing exit speed on batted balls instantly. And then I got my wish during the home run derby. And I said, actually, this kind of removes some of the suspense. I don't know that I want this much information. So who knows? Maybe it's better not to know. And then you get the surprise of, oh, he's right there, right? Like when the ball gets to the home plate, it's like, oh my gosh, it's a close play. Who knows? All right. Question from Jordan, Patreon supporter, and he's bringing up the

scene in season two, episode nine of The Bear that I mentioned the other day. And he says, you probably noticed Cicero's very on-point monologue about how game six of the 2003 NLCS should be called the Alex Gonzalez game, not the Steve Bartman game, because, of course, it was Gonzalez who was actually a baseball player and who failed to make a baseball play, the failure of which led to the game unraveling. But what I was surprised he didn't mention on the show was the fact that not only is there another Alex Gonzalez, and not only is he also a shortstop, and not only only did he play for the Marlins, but he was, in fact, playing against the Cubs in

that very game. If it were me, I don't think I could have resisted some kind of baseball Ingmar Bergman persona, Hitchcock vertigo thing, be Alex Gonzalez, not Alex Gonzalez or some such in any event. I assume there are other instances, perhaps many other instances of players with the same name playing against each other in the same game. But are there any other instances of both those players being at the same position in the same game? I will take my answer in the form of a reduction or perhaps a foam. Thank you, chefs. Jeffs. So I wanted to play a clip of this monologue, but it's like three minutes long, which is kind of incredible. It's like, you know, one of the best shows, one of the most acclaimed shows on TV takes like two and a half, three minutes to explain the whole Alex Gonzalez, Steve Bartman scenario. Like, again, if you saw that in the script, I mean, someone must have been

like, really, are we going to like, are people into baseball enough that they're going to go with this on this whole long analogy here? But yes, they did, which, again, furthers my sense that baseball is overrepresented when it comes to media. But you could answer this question in a more comprehensive, stat-blasty way. But I ended up not doing that because it didn't take me long to find a precedent for this. take me long to find a precedent for this. And I mean, my first thought, like I remembered, you know, the Bobby Joneses pitching against each other. Was it Bobby J. Jones and Bobby M. Jones? I think they pitched against each other like in 1999, I think, at Coors Field. The two Bobby Joneses pitched against each other. And that was my immediate thought. But then I just did a little bit of browsing,

and I found that the Alex Gonzalez's weren't even the only same-name players named Gonzalez to play the same position against each other within six months of the Bartman game. Yeah, because there were the Luis Gonzalez's, the Luis's Gonzalez, right? And Luis Gonzalez played left field for the Rockies in a game against the Diamondbacks on April 7th, 2004. And the better and better known Luis Gonzalez also played left field for the Diamondbacks in that game. So early the season following the Bartman playoffs, April 7th, 2004,

you had Luis Gonzalez's playing against each other in a Rockies Diamondbacks game. So at that point, I thought, well, why even continue the search? Because I found such a proximate example, not only with the same name player at the same position, but both named Gonzalez. And that just seemed perfect. So yes, it has happened before. And in fact, I didn't even have to go very far or look very hard. So there's just a lot of baseball players and a lot of games and weird coincidences come up. I am on the one hand surprised, but also deeply not because all you have to do is like enter a common name in our player search. And you're like, there's no way that some of these guys haven't faced off against each other. Of course they have. Yeah, right. Yeah, we talked about same name players recently, some of whom are related. In this case, not related, but the same name.

All right. Marcus says, some number of episodes ago, you discussed what constitutes a comeback win. Now, I'm hazy on all the details of the conversation, including where your opinions eventually landed, as am I. But I remember feeling unsatisfied with the ultimate result. This was, I think, a high number of episodes ago, unless we talked about it again, which is possible. I know Sam and I answered a question about this

on episode 1410. So that was just about three years ago now, four years ago now. And we answered a question from someone who is asking about what we consider to come from behind victory.

Like if you're down one, nothing going into the bottom of the first and you come back and win, is that one? I think we said that maybe it doesn't count unless like it has to be the end of the inning that you're behind. Like if you haven't had your chance to hit yet, then maybe it's not quite come from behind yet. It's not quite come from behind yet. But the questioner at that point said that, you know, his proposal, you can only call it a come from behind win if you're trailing by more than five at any point or the number of runs trailing equals the number of outs left. And that's sort of what Marcus is proposing here, a little bit different. He's been mulling over the idea for the last many months or years, ultimately coming up with what he believes is the most satisfying and simple solution, the inverse inning rule for comeback wins. If a team trails by a number of runs equal to or larger than the number of innings remaining when they go to bat and then goes on to win the game, it can be considered a comeback win.

So if it's the first inning, you have to be nine or more runs behind. But if it's the ninth inning, then you only have to be one or more runs behind, right? And he says a game going into extras becomes sticky. My initial gut feeling says any extra inning game cannot be considered a comeback win. But my disdain for the zombie runner might be fogging my opinion on what a true extra inning win is in today's game. What does it even mean anymore? Yeah. So, so is this too strict or is this handy? So first inning, you've got to be way behind because you've got so many innings to come back. You've got to be nine plus runs behind second inning, eight plus runs behind third inning,

seven plus runs behind, et cetera. It is a pretty stringent standard. Yes. And boy, it really, but I wonder if it, I'm thinking about it, Ben, and I kind of like it. I mean, I kind of off the hook late in a way that I am, because like if you're, if you're behind by one run, I mean, you do come back to win technically. Right. Well, that's, that's what I remember talking about before. It's like, if you come from behind, you did come from behind. Like, it's obviously more impressive sometimes than others, depending on how far behind you were. But I wouldn't throw it out entirely and say you didn't come from behind.

You did. How impressed I am by that varies. Exactly. Like, I really like what this does for our understanding of come from behind wins in the early going. In the early going. Because technically, like, you know, if you're trailing at any point and then you go ahead to win the game, like, you have come from behind. But if you're trailing by two in the second inning and then you end up winning, that's not what I mean by a come from behind win, right? Like, it's technically true, but it doesn't capture the, like, need to scrap, you know?

If you're only down a run or two in the early going, you're like, well, it's early, you know? You're not necessarily worried. I mean, you might be worried, but you're probably not like super worried, right? As opposed to like blowing a lead late and then having to rally back and come from behind to win. So I like what this does for our understanding of sort of getting behind early and really it needing to be like a big, you're in a hole,

you know, you're in a, not a pit, but you're in a hole, right? Is the ratio of time to runs right late? Maybe not quite, but it is close. I think I like this. I think I like this as a standard, Ben. Yeah. I think last time we probably invoked win expectancy, right? You could have it be based on that, which obviously will be sensitive to how late and how far behind. So that would be sort of a sliding scale depending on what inning it is, what the margin is, right? So you could say that it has to be a certain win expectancy threshold or something that you came back to surprise everyone. You could just have some kind of cutoff there wherever you want it personally. But, yeah, I mean, ultimately, it's hard for the pedantic person in me not to say it's a come from behind win if you come from behind by any amount.

But also, yeah, you have to determine for yourself. It's sort of subjective when it's actually satisfying that you came from behind. There's something more notable about that than just that you won the game. Yes. I think that's the perfect way to put it. We are trying to we are trying to put in numbers that feeling of like,ew, like, you know, where you're nervous and then you're relieved and you have that great like, wow, by the skin of our teeth. Because like if you, what about the games where you both come from behind and end up and end up, hmm, blowing out the other team, you know? Like how do you categorize those where you're like back by, you know, four runs and then, and then you have a giant inning, and all of a sudden you're ahead by 10, and it's like,

what is the dominant feeling? It's not in that moment. The come from behind, you're like, whoa, we blew them out. But maybe it is. Maybe you're like, wow. So, I don't know, man. Like, feelings are hard. Yep. All right. Question from Adam. Extraordinarily pedantic question for the pod. Okay. You've come to the right place. In the third inning of the Mets broadcast on Friday, July 7th, Gary Cohen said that Hugh Darvish had retired six in a row since allowing a base runner. He later raised it to seven after the next out was recorded and remarked on it again after the streak had ended. Here's the issue.

At the time, Darvish had in fact only retired the last five batters, but the first was on a double play, so he had recorded six outs. Was it accurate to say that Darvish had retired six in a row since that last base hit, or had he retired five in a row, recording six outs in the process? Oh boy. I don't know, man. I think the latter. I think, yeah, I think the latter. I think you, when you say you retired some number of, you're talking about batters, right? When you retire batters in a row, I think you're talking about batters when you say he's retired six in a row. And in this case, he had only retired five batters in a row and also a runner was out. And also a base runner. Yeah. Right. So he got six outs in a row without allowing

somebody on base. But as much as I like Gary Cohen, I think I have to rule against him here. I don't think you can count the out in the double play of the already on base runner in this. I think that that's right. I think that I agree with that. We differentiate between batters and runners in the rule book. We do. Although there are times when we refer to them as batter, hitter runners, batter runners. But we acknowledge them to be separate entities, that you are engaged in a different baseball activity doing one thing than the other. And so I think that we need to be a little choosy in how we deploy those words and say, you know, it's not a, this isn't a squares, rectangles kind of thing. You know, it's not like that. They're,

you know, circles and squares. They're apples and oranges. They're other contrasting things. All right. Question from Andrew. Your discussion of bad game endings led me to think of Mike McDougal, remembered for entering a Kansas City Cleveland game with a 7-2 lead in the ninth that the Royals managed to lose 13-7, which led me to note that McDougal, a career American

League reliever with zero plate appearances, is listed as a switch hitter. And that, in turn, led me to wonder, what does it take to be listed as a switch hitter? If Grayson Rodriguez were to insist that he is a switch hitter, would he be listed as such on the grounds that, well, who's to say he isn't? I wonder who will turn out to be the last switch hitting pitcher. I assume there were some real ones and even some good ones back in the day. I guess there will always be people like Kenley Jensen, famously a converted switch hitting catcher. So it's true. Pitchers don't hit now, Otani aside. But there's still a possibility that they could. Theoretically,

they could. David Robertson batted last year, right? So it could happen. I emailed someone at MLB just to ask how is it determined whether pitchers are listed as... I love you. Oh, God. That's great. Someone was like,

we just did the All-Star game, man. We're all exhausted. And this is what you want on record? Hey, it's an All-Star game, man. We're all exhausted, and this is what you want on record? Hey, it's an All-Star break, right? They should all be very rested now. But also this was prior to the All-Star break. But I just asked, like, what determines whether a pitcher is listed as lefty-ready or switch now that they don't hit in games? Like, do teams collect that info and report it to MLB, or does MLB ask players directly, like, is there a form to fill out in spring training or something?

And the person from MLB said that they list players as left, right, or switch based on info from the clubs who might bat at some point this year, even if not in every game. So I do not know as of yet how the clubs determine that information, but I would guess that they just ask probably. I mean, I don't know. I'm sure that they just ask. The system, yeah, probably. Or, you know, they would have hit at some point. And I guess like if a pitcher wanted to perpetrate a low stakes hoax of some sort and pass themselves off as a switch hitter, I guess they could, right? I mean, who's going to know the difference? They don't

hit, so they will not be proven wrong. But yeah, if you wanted to claim that you were a switch hitter, then I think you could probably get away with it now. But I assume there is a process, whether it's in Spring Trainer or when you get drafted or, you know, whenever it is. It's probably just like you write it down somewhere. They ask you or I don't know. But it enters the system at that point. So, yeah, you probably could just make it up if you wanted to. But I'm glad we continue to gather that information again, as we established humans like information, even if it's useless. And this is useless information, but just in the interest

of, you know, completeness and historical consistency, we might as well know. And you never know, it could come into play at some point. I imagine that for guys who, you know, it's like I know that players specialize earlier and earlier. But like going back to, you know, when you're in a little league, you're doing all kinds of stuff, you know. And you're going to hit, like you're definitely going to hit before you pitch as a kid, right? And so it probably just persists through years of records of these guys, you know. Like even if you're playing high school and college ball, like you're listed one way or the other on a roster. So even if they don't ask, there's some record of what the guy does, you know, at some point there. Yeah. Right? there. Yeah. Right?

Like, yeah. Yeah. I think so. All right. Here is a question from Nick, Patreon supporter. I found another rare but substantial time saver for Rob Manfred to consider. Okay. I'm sure he's always open to slicing off a few seconds here or there.

July 6th, Dodgers-Pirates in the bottom of the eighth. The Pirates sent out Ryan Barucki to the mound. He completed his warm-up. Then the Dodgers sent up a pinch hitter, DeLuca, which was announced over the PA. As is tradition, only then do the Pirates make a pitching change and bring in Ramirez. This little mind game is a part of baseball. But would either of you mind if starting an inning with a pinch hitter, the PA would make the announcement before the warm-up tosses?

So it's the start of the inning. So there hasn't been a pitching change yet, right? So I guess Brucky, I don't know if he had been in the previous inning, or this was a new pitcher. I assume he had already been in the game. And then there was a pinch hitter at the top of the inning, but the pinch hitter was not announced until after Berucky had warmed up. And so they had to wait to make the pitching change until after that. And so that led to an extra delay, right? So I guess in that scenario, then I see what Nick is saying, that you could save a little time there.

I find myself, I mean, I didn't really have the experience of like thinking, hey, can we get going already with stuff before the pitching changes or before the pitch clock rather? And now I find myself being like, you know, we don't need to move this any faster. So like we could, I don't think it would bother anyone. Would anyone notice? Probably not, Ben. I think, I think you wouldn't even notice. I think it would escape notice, but I don't feel the need to move it any faster than I think we're at a good, we're at, we've reached a really good level and now we should sit in that for a while and make sure we still feel that way, like come the end of September into October. And then we should experience, like, the first portion of next season, not the first half.

What Rube would say such a thing, you know? And then go and see, do we need to do any more, you know, nipping and tucking of time. But I don't feel – I feel very at ease. You know, I'm still in vacation glow. So I don't – I'm free and easy I think is what I'm – where I'm at. Yeah. This doesn't happen all that often obviously. So like a lot of the pre-pitch clock time-saving measures, it would not save much time.

But yeah, this was July 5th, actually, and Berucki did pitch the 7th and then I guess came out for the 8th. And then Johnny DeLuca pinch hit for Jason Hayward. And then Johan Ramirez came in. And so there was some extra waiting around at that point and so if deluca had had to be declared as the pinch hitter prior to the warm-ups then we would have saved the time of bruckey doing his warm-ups right because there was no pitching change in this case that the manager was responding to with a pinch hitter. The pitcher was the same pitcher who had been in there the previous inning. So, yeah, I guess so.

All right. And maybe one more here from Mac who says, I was watching an MLB blooper reel type video on YouTube, and it featured some of my favorite types of plays. A player runs into a pickle and retreats to his original base, only to find that his teammate who was on the the base behind him, is now standing on the base. And two runners plus a fielder with the ball all stand around the base confused as to who is out and who is safe. I myself typically can't remember who is out on these plays, but I got to thinking, what if both could be safe?

what if both could be safe? What if two runners could occupy a base as long as the second runner to arrive doesn't pass their teammate on their way to the next one? A few rules and clarifications for this scenario. One, force plays remain. When a ball is put in play and first base is occupied, the runner or runners on first must attempt to advance. A force play at second in which first base is occupied by two runners would count as two outs. Okay. Number two, the only way to double up on first would be a drop third strike. Now no longer an automatic out when first base is occupied because it could be double occupied. Walks and hit by pitches advance runners the way they normally would, whether a base has one or two occupants. Three, runners are not tied to each other. So say two

runners are on second on a single to the outfield, the lead runner could round and score with the trailing runner staying behind at third. Okay. Number four, you can steal to an occupied base, but two runners cannot steal the same base at the same time. And finally, only the leading runner may take a lead off their base before the pitch or may be picked off. And I guess the other guy has to maintain contact as well as he can with, you know, electron repulsion going on. So how would these overloaded bases affect the run environment? Would it even further encourage having speedy vroom vroom players who could pool up in scoring position? Would defenders be encouraged to make riskier and more athletic plays in order to record more outs by throwing to bases they typically wouldn't? I had a lot of fun creating this

scenario and I'm curious to hear your thoughts. I can tell that you did, Mac. Mac's really thought this through. He's done a lot of the work that we usually have to do on the email episode where we try to tease out all the implications and complications. He has given this a lot of thought already and seems to have solved or addressed some of the issues. So I do kind of like the prospect of a double play at the same base, just throwing out multiple runners on the same play at the same base. That's kind of fun. Yeah, I do think that this would be pretty confusing for people in the ballpark. That is true, yeah. I think it would play better on TV than it would live in ballpark because, first of all, we all have this expectation of, like, how many guys can occupy a base at once. And so it would require a shift in expectation. And then any time I have seen guys, two guys at the same base in person, it is wildly confusing to everyone around you.

in person, it is wildly confusing to everyone around you. Like, they're just like, who is out and who has the right to the base? And what is the, and if that guy doesn't have the right to the base, but the other guy steps off accidentally, like, is that a, what's going on? And so I do think it would require the umps to like get on mic afterward and be like, okay, guys, here's how this goes. Like for a while before people would adapt. But I think it would be really fun. I think it would be a very fun thing that we would all be like, you know, maybe it would become like box where people are like, I'm confident I know this rule. And I'm like, are you though? Because do any of us really know this rule super well? In a way, it's simpler than what we have now because, yeah, there's always confusion about who's safe and who's out. Well, in this scenario, they're both safe always, I guess, right? Because you have an extra human who's allowed to

be there. And even if one guy is allowed to take the lead, but if they both have to be in contact with the base, and then there's the fielder to worry about too. So yes, you might have to have even more size on those bases to allow all these different players to touch them at the same time. So that's one implication. And then we'd get to have another round of spring training photos of the bigger bases. Yes, that'd be fun. And you taking photos of the people taking photos of the bases, which would be great. And yeah, I mean, it would certainly change your incentives. I mean, yes, you could

have, you could have a seven run grand slam, right? I think as, as, as was pointed out by Mac, I mean, you can have a whole lot of, you can have six runners on base now, right? So that ups the stakes. I mean, when runners are in scoring position, now you can have twice as many runners in scoring position. So it would make things super exciting when you had the bases juiced, right? When the bases are loaded, they'd be overloaded. They'd be really, really loaded. And that would keep you glued to things. And then, yeah, I guess it would change the incentives on certain plays and it would change the calculus of do I want to go for this riskier play if I could get two guys out on a force out at that base, right? So there'd be some strategic implications there.

implications there. Yeah, I mean, you just have bigger swings on certain swings because more runners would be able to score at any given time. It would be fun. I don't know if it would be better, but the novelty value would make this entertaining for a while. Yeah, I mean, here I spent yesterday's episode being like, maybe the All-Star Game has reached its final format. I had forgotten my otherwise good idea of having the All-Star Game be the place where we do all of the weird,

effectively wild hypotheticals just for one game so everyone can see how they go and then move on. That's actually the final form, the galaxy brain version of the All-Star Game. Do you think they'll let us do it? Like if we ask nicely, you could email and be like, how do they determine switch headers? And also, would you let two internet randos be in charge of the All-Star game for one year and just see how it goes? Do you think they'd do it? Yeah. Lab League, at least. Lab League. Yeah. All right. Well, we will segue into the stat blast here. We'll take a data set sorted by something 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 Destablast. Josh, Patreon supporter, who says in their 88th game of the season, the Padres just finished off their eighth extra inning game.

They're 0-8 in those games and on pace to go 0-15 in extra inning games this year. What's the most extra inning games a team has played in a season without a win? Additionally, how many times, if ever, has a team lost its first eight extra inning games of a season? So this is a simple stat head query, which I did. And the team to beat is the 1969 Montreal Expos, the expansion Expos. They went 0-12 in extra inning games, and that is the most ever. And really, there haven't been any teams that lost more than that to start a season and then ultimately won one. The Expos, even to start a season 0-12 for the Expos, that's the max.

Then you had the 2012 terrible Astros who started that season 0-11 in extra inning games. The 82 Twins started 0-10. The 1907 Cardinals also started 0-10. And that's it. Those are the only four teams that have even started losses in extra innings to start a season without having won one. So they are definitely on track to take over those expos. It's really, how many different ways can a team be snakebitten and unlucky? Like the Padres, you know, we talked about their performance with runners in scoring position, which has not been great. And then they haven't won a game in extras. And then I guess related to that, they have a lousy record in one-run games, 5-15, some of which would have been those extra inning games also. But man, I mean, they were supposed to be good.

They have not been good. And they've been disappointing any way you slice it. But they have also underperformed their base runs records by quite a bit, right? And this is why they're six games below their expected or deserved records. And they keep losing a lot of these coin flip games and coming up unclutch. So, yeah, it has been notable. Frustrating season for those San Diego Padres. No kidding.

All right. The real stat blast, the main stat blast here, has a couple of impetuses. Impetai? I don't know. But one thing that made me think of this was that recently Brandon Hyde, Orioles manager, was ejected in a game that the Orioles were winning 14 to 1. And I thought...

Was he really? Yeah. And I thought that's got to be notable. That's got to be strange, right? That's funny. And Hyde said, a weird situation. That's my weirdest ejection of all time.

First one up two touchdowns. It was the eighth inning of the Orioles 14 to one win. And it was actually 14 to nothing at the time that he got ejected. He argued with plate umpire Dan Iasonia, who had just warned both benches after Wandi Peralta hit Jordan Westberg with a pitch. And Hyde went out to ask Iasonia why he didn't just eject Peralta, who had just loaded the bases in a 14 to nothing game, which I guess makes you think it probably wasn't intentional, right? But he said he didn't think arguing over a warning warranted an ejection, but I guess it did. He said, I was just going to ask if they were going

to issue a warning, why didn't they throw him out? And I got ejected for coming out for that. I just didn't know that was an ejectable offense. So that was weird. And I wondered, okay, has there been a managerial ejection when the manager's team was up by more runs than that? Because you'd think if you're winning in a walk, if it's a blowout like that, you're not going to be super upset about anything, probably, right? You'll take things in stride. You'll be like Meg with the vacation glow. So this seems unusual.

Then we also got a question from Andrew, who was responding to yet another Aaron Boone ejection. And he said, many times managers try to get ejected to hype up their team and get them going. Does that actually work? What are these managers' teams' records after getting ejected? What is the all-time win and loss percentage in those games? So that's a more difficult question to answer, but I think we have managed it here. And by we, I mean Ryan Nelson, frequent StatBus consultant.

Find him on Twitter at rsnelson23. So we're tackling the age-old question here of the managerial ejection motivation effect. Does that actually work? Is a team more likely to rally and have a come-from-behind victory, if we're allowed to use that term, after the manager gets ejected and fires everyone up, supposedly. So Ryan used RetroSheet here, and he was able to determine that entering a manager ejection, the average team was down by 1.1 runs, okay, which, you know, makes sense probably that they would be trailing and, you know, you're

upset that you're losing the game and that it would be a fairly close game because if it's a blowout, I guess you might be extra annoyed and frustrated and have a short fuse. But if there's something really on the line and, you know, a call might swing the outcome of the game, then maybe you're more inclined to argue or, you know, pump up your players. Whereas if you're totally out of it, then you might think that your powers of motivation, it's beyond that, right? So one important caveat here, RetroSheet records the inning that the manager was ejected. And we know what the score was in the inning, but it doesn't record when exactly the ejection

happens. So like how many outs there were who was on base. So we don't know the exact base out situation. So Ryan has to approximate here. That's the best we can do, but I think it's just about good enough. So average team down 1.1 runs when the manager gets ejected. After the manager ejection, those teams on average outscored their opponents over the rest of the game by 0.08 runs.

So at first, Ryan says, that sounds great. And that was my initial reaction because I was thinking, OK, these teams are losing typically when the manager is ejected. And so you would think if they're losing, maybe they're the inferior team typically. That's why they're down in the game. And then after the ejection, they're just as good, even just a tad better than their opponent. So, okay, maybe this is evidence for the motivation effect. But Ryan says the actual way to think about this is a manager is much more likely to be ejected when losing. And then from that point forward, we expect regression to the mean and the teams are most likely to be equitable

from that point forward. So it's probably not that notable that they basically play to a draw after the ejection. And he determined, so he basically, he built an approximate win expectancy model here, again, just using the inning and the score. And he found that the average manager ejection happens when a team has a 44% chance of winning. So they're trailing, but they're still very much in it. And there's still something to fight for and be mad about. And over the course of the rest of the game, the teams underperform that win expectancy by 2.5 percentage points. So they have a 44% chance of winning when the manager gets ejected, and they end up winning 41.5% of the games.

So there is no evidence there that teams are more likely to come back after the manager gets ejected, taking into account the score in the inning when the manager gets ejected. So if there were a manager motivational effect, you would expect that teams would win more often than their win expectancy suggested. And in fact, they win slightly less often. This seems to take the wind out of the sails of the manager should go get himself run to fire up his players argument. Man, I'm so disappointed. Yeah, I'm a little disappointed. I'm not surprised, but I'm mildly disappointed. Now, I was thinking with Ryan, I was trying to think, is there any reason why a game with a managerial ejection would be skewed toward the manager's team actually having a lower true win expectancy than the estimate would say. For instance, if the manager

got ejected because, let's say, one of his players got ejected, maybe his starting pitcher got ejected and he's mad about it, then that would hurt the team's chances of a comeback, right? But that wouldn't show up in this estimate. This model would not be accounting for that. And so maybe the manager's team would underperform the win expectancy model, but they would be at a greater disadvantage than the model shows. Plus, if you think managers matter, they help you win games. Well, if your manager gets ejected, then you're without your manager, mostly. So there might be some subpar decision making going on unless the manager is passing word about what to do. And Ryan said, yeah, maybe that could be the case for that 2.5 percentage point underperformance that we see there. But he doesn't think it would be a big enough confounding factor to mask a true and significant manager motivation effect. And I doubt that, too.

He said there have been 6,134 manager ejections on record, and only 64 of those mention arguing over the manager's player's ejection. So a very small percentage of them actually came from arguing about an ejection, so probably not enough to move the needle here. So it doesn't seem like that would really account for it. So if people have other potential explanations, feel free to write in, but it certainly does not seem like there's any strong evidence here that it makes a team more likely to come back. And granted, the manager may have other motivations.

I mean, they may just legitimately be mad, right? It might not just be for show. They might just be pissed. But also, they want their players to know that they have their back, right? It might not just be for show. They might just be pissed. But also, they want their players to know that they have their back, right? Like, even if that doesn't result in a comeback in that game, I think maybe it improves your standing in the clubhouse. You know, you feel like your manager is willing to go out there and fight for you, right? Or sometimes the manager gets tossed to intervene before one of their players can get tossed, right? Or sometimes the manager gets tossed to intervene before one of their

players can get tossed, right? They kind of, they go and take the brunt of it just to sort of, you know, body the player, just, you know, box them out basically and be like, you go back to the dugout, I'll continue this argument so that you can keep playing, that kind of thing. So I think there are other incentives for the manager to get thrown out from time to time, just so as to seem feisty, right? To seem like you're in the game, you're not too passive, you're not taking these things lying down. Probably helps, you know, to put on a show every now and then for the fan base and for your GM and your owner too, right? Just to show that you really care and you're going to go out there and argue if you think you have a case. So I don't think the comeback factor is the only reason to get thrown

out, but it doesn't seem like there's anything to the comeback factor, sadly. There might be psychological benefit to the manager, right? To vent the spleen, Yes. Right. To let out his own little feelings. But I guess it could be true that it doesn't have a – there's no transference of that benefit. Probably. It's not a rallying cry so much as like a whimper, you know? Yeah. And I did ask Ryan, well, what was the greatest comeback after a managerial ejection? the greatest comeback after a managerial ejection. And five times he found a team has come back after being down six runs after a managerial ejection. The first one of those was effectively wild legend

Eddie Stanky on May 21st, 1953. There was a comeback. And then Mike Hargrove in 97, Jim Leland in 98, Buddy Black in 2009, and Luis Rojas of the Mets in 2021. And by this win expectancy metric, the greatest comeback was the Leland game. The Marlins came back on August 26, 1998, after Leland got thrown out. And I guess Ryan's model would have given them a 0.7% chance to do that. He was ejected in the eighth inning, and the Marlins were down by six. I think it was 6-0, and they came back to win 7-6 in 10 innings. Very exciting. I think that that lead or deficit for the Marlins may have been added to just after Leland got ejected, like he got ejected mid-inning and then the other team scored more runs after he was run technically. They were playing the Cardinals and it was a game in 98.

Again, Mark McGuire hit his 54th home run of the season, stayed a couple ahead of Sammy Sosa. It was supposedly a 509-foot home run. I guess I'd like to see the stat cast on that, but who knows? Maybe there were some andro and creatine references in the game story that I'm reading that I will link to. But Jimmy Leland said, one of the greatest wins in all my years of baseball. Although I don't know if he technically gets credit for the win. I don't know if he was ejected. He was managing for most of the game, but not when the win happened.

He was watching in the clubhouse at that point. But the Marlins slammed a franchise record for homers in the ninth inning to complete an incredible six-run comeback and win 7-6 in 10 innings on Randy Knorr's RBI double. But there was Justin Spire, then a Marlins rookie. He gave up Big Mac's 54th. And then the comeback, Derek Lee, Cliff Floyd, Kevin Ory, and Mark Kotze homered in the ninth, the first three going back to back to back, or I guess as we've covered, back to belly, right? And Kotze's was a three-run shot.

Cliff Floyd says, I've never seen anything like it. It's a bright spot in our year. And Leland got ejected, I guess, because Spires' first pitch after Maguire's homer almost hit Brian Jordan in the head with a 75-mile-per-hour splitter. Neither bench emptied, but Jordan yelled at Spire, and plate umpire Harry Wendelstedt issued a warning, which brought Marlins manager Jim Leland out of the Marlins dugout. Leland was subsequently ejected. I snapped, Leland said.

To me, it didn't warrant a warning. Okay, so that was a notable comeback. Now, the original question about Brandon Hyde's ejection and whether that was the most lopsided game in the manager's favor in a game when the manager got tossed, the answer is no, I think, not quite. And the record holder, I guess, unsurprisingly, is Ozzy Guillen. So, Ozzy, he was managing for the White Sox, White Sox Cardinals, June 20th, 2006. And the White Sox were winning 20 to 2 at the time. It was the seventh inning. I think the White Sox might have tacked on a run or two after he got run, but it was extremely lopsided and he got tossed in that game. So I guess it's not totally shocking that he would be the one at the center of that, but you'd think it would really take a lot to get you upset when your team is just winning in a blowout like that. But I guess, you know, Ozzy, he had a temper. In fact, that same week, he was fined and ordered to attend sensitivity training for a separate incident. I think this was when he used a

homophobic slur, let's say, to refer to the columnist Jay Mariotti. Oh, gosh. And that's one of those ones where I don't think Jay Mariotti the best guy either, but you can't say that. So that was, I think, the same week because he was also suspended in that game along with White Sox pitcher David Risky, after the reliever threw at Chris Duncan of the Cardinals, right? But he had gone on that profanity-laced tirade against Mariotti, the Chicago Sun-Times columnist, before that game. So I guess it was the same day. So maybe he was still steamed about Mariotti. But it's pretty wild to read about what happened in that game. Risky was suspended three games for intentionally throwing at Chris Davis.

Guillen was suspended for one game and also was fined. The benches had been warned after St. Louis pitcher Sidney Ponson had hit a couple of White Sox pitchers with the bases loaded. And Dave Duncan, who was the Cardinals pitching coach and the father of Chris Duncan, was quite upset in a radio interview talking about Guillen. He said he's constantly embroiled in controversy and he's always got an excuse for it. I don't like liars. Guillen claimed he called to apologize to Duncan once he realized that Duncan's son had been the one hit. Then Duncan said, I'm a little disappointed in Ozzie. He said he called over to me when he found out. That's a flat out lie. He never called over to find out or apologize to me. He continued. Ozzie said he didn't even know he was my son, which indicates he had some involvement. I did run into Ozzie on the field and he said I didn't have anything to do with it, that's probably a lie too. Guillen then clarified that he didn't actually call Duncan, but he called Tony La Russa and said he wanted to talk to Duncan. He said, I didn't lie. I swear on my three kids that the order for

risky to hit someone didn't come from him. And when Duncan was told about that, he said, I was upset. I still am upset. I don't like liars. So no love lost between those two. And then I also asked about the most lopsided margin when a manager was ejected while his team was losing the game. And oddly enough, it also involved a game that the Cardinals were playing in,

but they were down 20 to 2 this time instead of ahead 20 to 2. And Tony La Russa was ejected in the eighth inning of a game against the Phillies on June 13, 2008, while down 20-2. Wow. Yeah. So this one was another weird one, as you might imagine. Ryan Howard had hit a couple home runs in that game for the Phillies.

a couple home runs in that game for the Phillies. And then in the eighth inning, reliever Russ Springer hit Howard with a pitch and was ejected by home plate umpire Larry Vanover. Phillies manager Jerry Manuel said that he thought Springer had thrown at Howard intentionally. Ryan stands way off the plate, he said. That's all I've got to say. And I guess La Russa was upset that his pitcher was ejected. And

so he came out to argue about that. And in turn, he was ejected. I asked Ryan the earliest and latest ejections in a game. Now, the earliest, there was just a many-way tie for first inning because that was the level of detail that we had. But there have been three managerial ejections in the 20th inning of games, which is surprising, right? There aren't many games that have gone 20 innings. And for three of them to result in managerial ejections, I guess you could say by that time you've been at the ballpark so long, the game has been going on forever. You're probably tired and cranky. So I guess you're just more likely to get thrown out. Yeah, I was going to say I have a very clear memory, Ben, of one time when my little brother was actually little. My younger brother was little.

He was probably, I don't know, three or four. And I was babysitting. And he was at that point of toddler exhaustion where, you know, you're so tired that you're super wound up. And he just threw himself in the middle of the floor and yelled, sometimes I just don't know what to do. And sometimes when managers get ejected, I think about him. I'm like, yeah, pulling a coal. Yeah, probably. So 1973, Eddie Matthews was ejected, I think about him. I'm like, yeah, pulling a coal. Yeah, probably. So, 1973, Eddie Matthews was ejected on May 4th

in a 20-inning game that the Phillies won 5-4, and Matthews, managing for Atlanta, was ejected in the 20th inning. It says the game ended in a rhubarb among Braves manager Eddie Matthews, catcher John Oates, and plate umpire John McSherry.

The Braves claimed Oates had tagged out Doyle. As usual, McSherry won, and so did the Phillies. There was no question that he was out, said a disconsolate Matthews. Oates was up on the plate, not behind it. McSherry blew it. So I guess this makes sense because it's the decisive play. It's the end. It was the winning run. And if you've gone that far into these things and you think it's a bad call, then of course you'd be upset if the game has been going on for that many hours. And then in 1974, September,

Yogi Berra, managing for the Mets, was ejected. This was in a 25-inning game. I think that's tied for the second longest game ever. And Barra got ejected in the 20th inning. The Cards had two on and none out when Mets manager Yogi Barra was ejected after arguing an obstruction call against his catcher, Duffy Dyer, who went 23 innings before being ejected for a pinch hitter. The Cardinals won that one 4-3. And then finally, August 1982, Tommy Lasorda got ejected in the 20th inning of a game. And this one, strange circumstances. Basically, the Dodgers were out of players and Fernando Valenzuela and Bob Welch had to play the outfield.

What? Yeah. And Fernando was apparently pretty excited about this. He always wanted to play outfield. He said, it was one of the most exciting days of my life because I've always dreamed of playing a position other than pitching. And he got to do it. The Dodgers were on a real roll there. They had won 16 out of 20, and they actually ended up winning this game over the Cubs 2-1.

It was a 21-inning suspended game. It had been suspended, I think, due to darkness or something after 17 innings, and then they resumed it. And it kept going. And Ron Say was ejected in the 20th inning when the Dodgers were already almost out of players. And Lasorda accused the umpire of deliberately throwing out Say, which, I mean, I guess he didn't accidentally throw out Say. But Lasorda meant that it could have forced the Dodgers to forfeit. He said the umpire knew we had nobody on the bench to put into the game outside of Valenzuela when he tossed Say and then me out. But he said that replays showed Say, who had singled, was not picked off first by Cubs pitcher Alan Ripley. And we didn't have a replay that could be used to change calls at the time. So both Lozorda and Cubs manager Lee Elia of the famous rant fame, they were both ejected during that game. But that was one of those weird ones. Made

me miss those extra long games that we don't get anymore because of the zombie runners. Sadly, when Fernando Valenzuela would play outfield and be super excited about it. So we've learned a lot, I think, in the segment. And lastly, Ryan noted, every ejection here has an explanation cited by RetroSheet. And it's just like a little column in a spreadsheet, I guess, or a table. And so it's generally just a few words. And it's very enigmatic sometimes. Like you can't tell exactly what was happening. It leaves a lot to the imagination. But the old timey ones, the 19th century and early 20th century player and manager ejections are just great. Here's one. 1889, Tommy Tucker ejected for yelling at outfielder chasing fly. 1889, Buck Ewing ejected for obscene language.

1889, Charlie Hoover ejected for fighting with fan. 1890, we have an ejection for insisting on playing with old ball. Okay. 1890, bench jockeying. Okay. That's a time-honored tradition. Now, 1894, Tommy Tucker again ejected, and the reason is, hid baseball from umpires. Like, all of these make me want to know more and do a deep dive to find out what happened here. Fred Tenney, 1896, ejected for calling umpire a fat dub. fat dub. Whatever that means. 1897, Boiler Yard Clark ejected protest use of old ball.

So sometimes the manager wanted to keep using an old ball. Sometimes they were protesting that they were using an old ball. John McGraw, hot teppered 1905, ejected for abusing opposition owner. Abusing opposition owner. Iusing opposition owner.

I wonder if that's physically, verbally, either would make some sense to me. And Kid Gleason, 1906, cumulative disagreements. Okay. 1907, Fred Clark ejected challenging fan to fight. A lot of fighting fans

or challenging fans to fight in those days. 1907, Bill Dolan ejected for showing up umpire, parentheses, flowers delivered. I mean, what? Flowers delivered? That's incredible. He had flowers delivered to the umpire, like what, to congratulate him for his bad call or something? I've got to look up more information here, I guess.

Then 1910, you have one for inciting the crowd. 1914, improper coaching, whatever that means. 1916, Sam Agnew ejected for fighting, parentheses, arrested by police. This is like a different era, okay? 1918, Dick Rudolph ejected for call it first base parentheses sat on mound. 1925, Nick Altrock ejected mimicking umpire in comedy act. That's great. That is wonderful. Frankie Frisch, 1940, call it first base parentheses faked fainting. 1941, Frankie Frisch ejected for bringing umbrella to protest weather.

Wait, wait, wait, what? I guess he had a prop. He brought an umbrella out to maybe argue that they should not have been playing in the rain, something like that. Billy Meyer, 1950, balls and strikes, parentheses, gave choke sign. 1957, Dick Drott ejected for bringing wheelchair to home plate. I don't know what was going on there. 1957, Bobby Bragan, call it second base, parentheses, held nose.

Okay. Jimmy Pearsall, 1960, distracting Ted Williams during at bat. And then effectively wild legend, Garver in his final season. I guess this was as a player. He left the dugout to steer Fielder, to steer the Fielder. Okay. Basically what that meant was he was just like guiding a Fielder on a foul pop so that I guess he didn't fall into the dugout. But I guess he went too far in doing that.

And then also when the umpire told him that he could not do that, he had some choice words for the umpire that were maybe the immediate cause of him actually being ejected. So just perusing the RetroSheet ejection logs and the reasons for them. That's a fun pastime. So I'll link to some of those if people want to check it out and do some additional research. Yeah. Yeah. Wow.

Wow. Ned Garver said, just keep your eye on the ball, he said when he was directed to go back to the tuckout. So that was what led to his ejection. All right. And our future blast comes to us from 2033 and from Rick Wilber, an award-winning writer, editor, and college professor who has been described as the dean of science fiction baseball. He writes, Jackson Holliday's steady progress through the minor leagues and into the big leagues in some ways mirrored his father Matt's career. Though Jackson's first seven years in the big leagues weren't quite the all-star material his father's had been.

material his fathers had been. Until 2033, that is, when Jackson, energized by his move to the White Sox, perhaps, played second base and won a gold glove while also leading the major leagues in on base percentage at.550. We hadn't seen those numbers since the likes of Barry Bonds. With 101 stolen bases, a hefty.365 batting average, and scoring 152 times, Jackson Holiday was American League MVP, though that 2033 season would be his best. Holiday played well for nine more years in the big leagues, making the All-Star team two more times and leading the White Sox to their dramatic 2036 World Series seventh game, where his memorable walk-off homer sent his 2.5 million Be There subscribers

into paroxysms of joy as Mets fans wept. Mets fans, at least they made it to game seven. Meanwhile, 2033 saw rumblings of a looming betting scandal involving the be there technology. Was it possible to reverse the signal? Could a be there receiver with the right tech reverse the signal and send a signal to the player? Could that signal be disruptive? A brief minor cramp or numbness in a pitcher's hand, a brief moment of blurred vision in a hitter's contact lens.

We still have contact lenses in 23, 33. Everyone hasn't had LASIK or whatever. MLB was investigating a number of players after that wild 2033 pennant race where miscues, walks, fat curves, and infield throwing errors cropped up abnormally often. So who could have anticipated that that technology would not backfire in some way? I guess it's a two-way system.

So you can feel what the players are doing. Maybe you can send a signal to them. You could tip them off. You could distract them. All sorts of scandals are conceivable here. We have a brave new frontier, Ben. It really is. All right.

Well, after we finished recording more bad news for the AL Central and or the trade market, Shane Bieber headed for an MRI for forearm irritation. However, in more auspicious injury-related news, Aaron Judge was cited.

He was seen taking batting practice and doing some light on-field drills so we can remove him from the milk cartons. Actually, I did some additional research about that and they stopped putting the kids on the milk cartons a long time ago, partly because it stopped working,

people stopped paying attention to it, partly because it scared kids. It's true, Megan and I did a bonus episode where we talked about things that scared us as kids and I'm pretty sure I named getting kidnapped as one of them. Also, they developed the Amber Alert system, which was a little more sophisticated

than the milk cartons. But good sign that Judd surfaced. Also, I did look up the Bill Dolan flowers incident when I was reading about the player and manager ejections earlier. I mentioned one where Bill Dolan got tossed for something involving flowers and umpires. Here's the account from the Pittsburgh Press. September 26, 1907 involves the Hall of Fame umpire Bill Clem. Pittsburgh Press, September 26, 1907, involves the Hall of Fame umpire Bill Clem. In the third inning, Bill Dolan, by what was evidently a prearranged plan, tried to show up Clem, but the joke was turned on bad Bill, and he was also chased.

Dolan had just walked to the plate to bat when George Brown ran out and handed him a bunch of flowers. Dolan turned up his nose and said, they're not for me, give them to Clem. Brown and the bouquet returned to the bench and Clem called a strike on Willie. He kicked and was told to the moose. Bad Bill was evidently ejected 65 times as a player and manager. Bad Bill indeed. Very good player though. Stats wise, one of the best players not in the Hall of Fame. Also got an email after we finished recording from Patreon supporter JJ who asked how bad would the return for an Otani trade have to be for Manfred to cancel it? Chris Paul and David Stern style would have to be very, very bad, right? Because A, he'd be a rental player.

It's not like you're trading team control of him for years and years to come. And B, I imagine MLB would like nothing better than for Otani to go elsewhere for the sport's biggest star to be either on the East Coast or at least with a contending team to be playing in the postseason. So unless the Angels just handed him over for free for a bag of balls, I doubt MLB would be inclined to veto that. It would have to be so egregious, and I don't know why the Angels would want to just give him away, but it would have to be so bad that the other owners and teams would revolt and would be up in arms about the Angels just handing over the best player in baseball to some other contending team. Then they might kick and say, hey, Rob, we're not going to reelect you unless you do something about this.

The Angels are handing Team X a pennant. But if it were just a generic bad deal, that wouldn't do it because it would probably be a good deal for MLB. And speaking of good deals, you can support Effectively Wild on Patreon by going to patreon.com slash effectively wild. The following five listeners have already signed up and pled some monthly or yearly amount to help keep the podcast going. Help us stay ad free and get themselves access to some perks. William Cole, Rebecca Chauval, Matt Piscitella, Andrew Perlman, and Paul Yogerst. Thanks to all of you. Patreon perks include access to the Effectively Wild Discord group for patrons only.

Just a wonderful, warm, welcoming, well-informed, inclusive community. I'm in there. Hope you'll join us. You also get access to monthly bonus episodes and playoff live streams, discounts on ad-free fancrafts, memberships and merch, and so much more. Patreon.com slash Effectively Wild. If you are a patron, you can message us through the Patreon site. When I identify emailers on email episodes as Patreon supporters, it's usually because they emailed us through the

Patreon messaging system, and I know that they're patrons. But anyone and everyone can contact us via email at podcast at fangraphs.com. Send us your questions and comments. Send us your Effectively Wild theme song submission if you want to join our intro and outro rotation. You can rate, review, and subscribe to Effectively Wild on iTunes and Spotify and other podcast platforms. You can join our Facebook group at facebook.com slash group slash effectively wild. You can follow Effectively Wild on Twitter at EWpod, and you can find the Effectively Wild subreddit at r slash effectively wild.

Thanks to Shane McKeon for his editing and production assistance. Thanks to you for listening today and this week. We hope you have a wonderful weekend, and we will be back to talk to you next week. Well, it's moments like these that make you ask, how can you not be horny? today and this week. We hope you have a wonderful weekend and we will be back to talk to you next week. Well, it's moments like these that make you ask, how can you not be horny about baseball? Every take hot and hotter

Entwining and a-butting Watch him climb Dick Mountain Nothing's about nothing Every stitch wet with sweat Breaking balls back Dormy, uneffectively wild How can you not be horny? Itch, wet, loose, sweat, breaking balls back. Dormy, uneffectively wild.

How can you not be horny? When it comes to podcasts, how can you not be horny?