Effectively Wild: A FanGraphs Baseball Podcast - Effectively Wild Episode 236: Analysts as General Managers/Hall of Fame Probabilities

Episode Date: July 2, 2013

Ben and Sam discuss whether hardcore quantitative analysts make good GM material, then estimate the likelihood that under-30 players will make the Hall of Fame.

Ben,.05 is actually one in 2,000. Yes, that is correct. And I'm going to correct my estimate of.05 to.02. So it is now one in 5,000 again. Sounds fair. Okay. Good morning and welcome to the latest episode of Effectively Wild, the daily podcast from BaseballPerspectives.com.

It is episode 236. Good cover. Good cover. Thank you. Nobody spotted that. I'm Sam Miller with Ben Lindberg. And Ben, yesterday I was listening to my favorite sports podcast, Hang Up and Listen, and they were talking about the Aaron Hernandez stuff.

Are you aware of Aaron Hernandez? Yeah, I've heard. Football player? Heard a bit about it, yes. Potential murderer? Yes. We'll find out. And I was thinking, my first thought was like how I sort of wish that I did a football podcast

because I think it would be fun to talk about some of the really, really crazy stuff that happens with football players. But then I wasn't sure. So I thought I would just quickly ask you. If a baseball player of equivalent status of Aaron Hernandez – I don't know what his status is. I don't either. I sort of sense that he's like uh something close to a star but maybe not like a household name so um maybe i'm just gonna throw this might be way

off but i'll just say like uh aj burnett okay like a a player who's like kind of on the cusp right if if if somebody like an aj Burnett were implicated in multiple murders, gangland-style murders, how many episodes do you think we would dedicate to that? Ever? Like over the life of his trial or whatever? The whole story arc? Yeah, yeah. Three? or whatever the whole story arc yeah yeah uh three three yeah i could see it being anywhere from zero to like nine but three seems reasonable i don't think we would shy away from it no i don't yeah i also don't know what we would say about right i don't know

that much about the particulars of the case and I don't know what there is to say about it. I guess it would depend on a lot of things, so yeah, I don't know. It doesn't seem like anybody who says anything about this case, the Angel, Aaron Hernandez case,

it seems like most people come out of it having said something regrettable. That's my impression. But mainly that's because the only football stuff that I get exposed to is usually meta commentary about people writing about football. Like I'm not going to sports sites and reading the stories about Aaron Hernandez. I'm much more likely to see the responses to the stuff that gets said about it so i have i have a skewed view probably of what people are writing i'm sure a lot of people have written greatly about it i like your your freudian slip of equating angel hernandez with an accused murderer

uh we do you do you want to mention the the tweet the tweet that we got? Yes. Yes, we talked about what the pirate's success should be credited to, and I suggested that it would ultimately turn into a story about coaching and giving credit to their coaches for turning their – That bird is so loud. It's a crow. It's a crow.

There's three of them now. Oh, now There's three of them. Oh, now there's one of them. And there it goes. The last one is gone. All right. And so we just got a helpful tweet from Hatch Burrito who let us know that, in fact, the Pittsburgh Tribune just did write this article. It was published on Saturday, which is two days before we did our podcast, and it says that Ray Searidge, the Pirates pitching coach,

is his choice for the Pirates' first half MVP. And it's an article about what an effect that Searidge has had on the Pirates' pitching staff, and goes through all the players who have overperformed this year and gives them credit. From Gene Marr Gomez, to Jason Grilly, to Mark Melanson, to Tony Watson, to Jared Hughes, to Charlie Morton. That's it. He had no effect on anybody else. that's it. He had no effect on anybody else. I looked briefly just to see whether I could find an equivalent article about Searidge from before the Pirates successful season.

And I did just quickly find one from March of 2011. That was basic. I mean it basically said the same things about him and gave him the same sort of praise. And at the time, I guess, so he's been in the Pirates organization for, this is his 11th season, this is his third full season as pitching coach, and fourth as a member of the Major League coaching staff, I think. So he was originally pitching coach under John Russell. I think he was the interim pitching coach.

And then he expected to be replaced when Hurdle was hired but wasn't, which was kind of unusual that Hurdle would keep someone that he didn't hire. And so that was used as sort of evidence of how legitimately good he is and how everyone in the organization says that he's wonderful. So I don't know, maybe it's, maybe it's not just a narrative, but then again I guess you, you need more than Searidge. I mean, he's been on, he's on, he's been on bad pirates teams. He's been the pitching coach for those.

I don't know whether it's just a case of his influence needing some time to take effect or whatever it is, or whether it's just a convenient reason. But you were right that that would get the credit, and I guess already had when you said that. Yes, I was right in describing what had happened in the past. Yes, those are the best kind of predictions when you can inadvertently predict something that already happened. And speaking of predictions, we did a show a couple weeks ago about Albert Pujols, who was in a hot streak at the time, and we read a quote from him that said

that he was back to being the Pujols of the Cardinals days, basically, and that he felt better than he had at any time during last season. And I asked whether you thought that mattered or whether you gave it any more credence or his hot streak any more credence because he said that. And I think you said not really. Right. And in the 10 games since then, he's hit 163. He's back.

The slightly not as old Albert Pujols is back. Yep. All right, so what do you want to talk about? Analysts as GMs. Analysts as GMss and I want to talk about predicting Hall of Famers. Mine's just a little

game. So why don't we start with yours? So this was inspired by some tweets, a long series of tweets by Chris Long yesterday. I think we've mentioned him on the podcast recently. He is the former head stat guy for the Padres.

He's still a consultant for the Padres. He consults for teams in other sports. He's a data analyst type. And he says kind of, I don't know, sort of a lot of polarizing things, I guess, which he can do now that he's a consultant and not a full-time employee of a lot of polarizing things, I guess, which he can do now that he's a consultant and not a full-time employee of a team. So yesterday he was tweeting some things about how analysts are, and he maybe defines analysts

in a different way than most people would, but how they have not really been promoted as much as they should have or have not really attained positions of authority that he thinks they deserve. So he initially tweeted, Problem hyphen getting sports teams to value analysis and analysts more. And then Colin Wires responded and said, that seems like a problem for analysts who want to get paid mostly. And then Chris Long asked, why can an analyst be a director, a vice president, an assistant GM, or a GM? GM and analyst are very different roles requiring very different skill sets, which is kind of the standard response. And then Chris Long answered that and said, that's the party line, but I disagree.

Negotiation and management are relatively simple to learn compared to math. And then he said the key components to being a good GM are intelligence and creativity, which analysts excel at by definition. So he's saying that analysts would make really good GMs and that being a good analyst is harder than being a good manager of people. And someone, I think Colin pointed out that Keith Wollner is a director with the Indians. And Chris Long said something like, well, why isn't he an assistant GM? And he's been with them for a while. So I'm wondering what you think about this. I mean, it seems to me, and he's defining analyst, you know, like someone brought up Andrew Friedman, who is sort of a financial analyst

and obviously pays a lot of attention to numbers and all those things. And that's not really the type of analyst he's talking about. He's talking like hardcore stat guy, guy who's doing, I don't know, he said something like Friedman is not doing differential equations or something like he, like, you know, a team's primary stat guy. He's wondering why that person has not yet become a gm and i guess um people were citing examples of of gms in other sports who would qualify as as an analyst according to him chris long said that daryl morey could be called an analyst um someone else said uh sam hinky who i mean, we're talking about other sports here, so we probably shouldn't, but these are basketball GMs. So that's happened in basketball,

I guess. Sorry, this might be a dumb question, but why isn't Paul DiPodesta getting credit for this? Is it just because he came at an era when analysis was not nearly as wonky as it is now? I don't know. No one brought him up. I guess that would have been a good counterexample. I guess he would fit the definition. I don't know. I mean, maybe – and it seems like he got kind of a bad rap there.

I mean, he got a kind of a tough, I mean, he seemed to do a lot of things well and then I guess kind of had a reputation for not being successful there and hasn't gotten another chance at it, even though he was, you know, a young, smart GM type who seemed like he would get another chance. I don't know whether people look at his regime and draw some sort of lesson from it, and that's why there hasn't been a successor to that. I don't know. But I mean, it seems to me like these are very different skill sets and that I don't know what the incentive to making your head stat guy your GM is other than just wanting to reward, you know, good work and attract good employees, if you can get that stat guy's guidance and input and advice

in his role as stat person, then what's your incentive to elevate him, I guess, unless you think that that person is also your best possible person for interacting with the media, for managing everyone else in the department, for sort of synthesizing the input of everyone else in the front office. I mean, those are very different skill sets, it seems to me. And I don't know how many head quantitative analyst people would even want that job or think they deserve that job? Do you have any thoughts? Well, yeah. I mean, I don't really, I'm thinking this through. This is a good topic.

Do you know, do you have a sort of an idea of where most GMs come from? I mean, if I had without, I'm just sort of very, very quickly in my head going down the list of the ones that I know. And it seems like they're generally kind of like, they were ballplayers who topped out at a very low level, like much lower even than managers did and instructors did. And then went into some sort of scouting route or joined an organization and worked their way up. But I haven't gone through 30 teams.

Where did Huntington come from? Do you know where Huntington came from? Or where did Cashman come from? Where are these guys from? A lot of them just sort of – I mean Cashman was a college player and then he just kind of started as an intern and worked his way up over a period of years. I don't know if he really had a specialty as like a stat or scout guy.

No, I just mean like – yeah, i just mean what is his yeah like what how did he get into baseball so he was a he was a college player and he worked as an intern so that's that's the answer for him uh like uh do you know uh sabian do you know where sabian came from uh he was he was like a scouting guy with the yankees, wasn't he, originally? I think, maybe. I can look it up. He was. He was a scouting guy with the Yankees. So he probably was, yeah, he probably played minor league ball or college ball or something and got into scouting, right?

Yeah, he played college, yeah. I think that Coletti, I think was the— And he was a college coach, apparently. Oh, oh, interesting. So then I think Coletti was like the PR guy for the Cubs is how he got his start. Yeah, that's a strange one. That's a strange one. Lunau worked as an engineer, management consultant, and technology entrepreneur.

Worked with McKinsey. That's interesting. I'm surprised there are not more McKinsey types. Because really, that's where I was going to, I mean, that's ultimately, I think, where I was going to land is that if, I guess the question is, how important is the GM's role in any of these individual departments? How important is the GM in the scouting department? How important is the GM in the statistics branch? Or is it mainly, is his role mainly as a manager and as a person who's able to get these organizations working together, have creative solutions, have different ways of thinking of things, having communication between departments,

making sure that you don't have any sociopaths, making sure that somebody can say the right things to the media. And if that's the case, you would think that the skill set would be quite a bit different than both routes, both the scouting guy who worked his way up and the quant guy who worked his way up. But if you had to choose between the quant and the scout, you probably would choose the scout just because he's got more, would choose the scout just because he's got more he's got sort of more i would say a more uh like a a baseball fluency that probably uh reaches all corners of the team in a way that might not if that makes sense uh he he basically knows uh you know, I think he knows if he's been around the game, if he's been in the game, if he's played, if he's done all these things, he probably has some more awareness of, you know, what the roving catching instructor does.

And, you know, how the umpires talk and, you know, every little detail that takes a long time to get this sort of cultural fluency. And I don't know that I wouldn't hold it against a guy who joined a front office for the first time when he was in his 30s as an analyst. I mean, I certainly don't know any of those things, and I think that's probably an undervalued kind of flaw in the job that maybe not everybody would have. So I don't know if that's an unfair thing to say, but, I mean, certainly a big part of baseball, of running a baseball team, seems to me, based on what we see on the field i would think

it would carry over somewhat into the front office is just being able to kind of play the part there's a lot of unwritten stuff there's a lot of culture there's a lot of tradition and you want somebody who's going to have credibility in those facets not because those things are necessarily important but because you don't want to you don't want to blow your credibility on small things that don't matter so't want to blow your credibility on small things that don't matter, so you've got to sort of cover the small stuff first. I remember one time I wrote a concert review for the Orange County Register, and I made some super-duper-duper outlandish claim about how some song was the best single since The

Zombies or something like that, and the editor's like, yeah, well, we can't put this in. I'm like, why not? It's a music review. It's my opinion. And he goes, yeah, well, if you put this in, then everybody's going to quit reading like right away. And this is a dumb place to have people quit reading. I mean, you can say it's a great song, but you don't want to lose them over something that you don't even really care that much about. So I feel like having a guy who's likely to lose a portion of the organization over this sort of fairly small stuff might be, I don't know, it seems like it might be a bad choice. On the other hand, I think that the point that a creative person who you've hired to be creative and you've hired because they have a rational, logical mind that's able

to solve problems in ways that other people haven't been able to solve it, that's a pretty impressive and powerful force. You do want to give that person as much responsibility as possible and that means promoting aggressively and giving more responsibility. I think that Chris's position will probably be absorbed somewhat. My guess is that in a decade, this conversation would not be happening. Yeah, that could be part of it because, I mean, it's only been in the last decade or so that every team has had a stat person. So you could certainly see, I mean, as that becomes more established, that that would become more accepted, that a stat person could become anything in a front office.

And I think he responded to that. He tweeted something about how teams can promote people as quickly as they want to promote people. Like the Astros hired a 27-year-old assistant GM last year. So they don't necessarily have to wait for there to be a really long track record of this sort of thing. If they think that someone is deserving, they could just put that person on the fast track and make them a manager of other people immediately without really the precedent for it. But that does seem like a factor. I guess it's just, I don't know. I mean, he says the key components to being a good GM are intelligence and creativity.

And I wonder whether that's the case. I mean, as long as you have, as long as you have, I mean, obviously you need some level of intelligence. But as long as you have someone or someones under you who are intelligent and creative. under you who are intelligent and creative. If your skills are talking to the media and developing relationships with other general managers that can facilitate trades and that sort of thing and keeping your employees happy and having an open mind so that you're receptive to other people's creativity, even if all of the creative ideas aren't coming directly from you, that seems like it would work well too. And to be a full-time, I mean, to be a really hardcore analyst,

you have to have, I mean, you know, to get one of those jobs these days, you have to have a master's in everything, math and computer science and all these things. So that doesn't leave a lot of time for the other things that you're saying and having that background and being able to relate to the maximum number of people in your organization. and being able to relate to the maximum number of people in your organization. Yeah, I don't get the sense. I might be wrong, but I don't get the sense that the quants in any other industry get promoted to CEO. If they're in an industry that has entrepreneurship, they might be the CEO by virtue of starting their own company and having it be wildly successful, which I think that both says something about the value of the engineer, essentially,

which is massive, but also maybe a sort of a bias that transcends all industries against promoting that guy to the people position. Yeah, and I mean there's some, I guess, disincentive for a team not to promote a brilliant analyst because if you make a brilliant analyst your GM, then that person probably doesn't have time to do his brilliant analysis anymore, right? I mean, that's a full-time job, crunching the numbers as a head stat person for a team. as a head stat person for a team, that doesn't seem like something you could do as effectively if you have all the many other demands on your time that a GM has. You'd say that about anybody, though.

Anybody who gets promoted to GM is going to leave their previous position, and my suspicion is that most GMs in their previous position were making more than the average analyst is for a team right now. So if they valued that guy any less, they probably wouldn't pay him so much. I wonder, I guess it kind of conflicts with that, but I was wondering if maybe the skill set is more specialized for a stat person where it would be harder to replace that position. Could be.

I mean, the skill set is more specialized. Yeah, I mean, there's certainly... Well, maybe it's not. I don't know. Well, I don't know. There are a lot more people who have played... Well, I don't know. Are there more people who have played baseball in college or professionally and learned some stuff about scouting than there are people who know a lot about baseball

and have high-level math, analytical, quantitative skills. The question is whether the analysts need to be baseball fans. I think at this point right now, my impression is that all the analysts come from a baseball-loving background. And I think that what we'll probably see before too long is that that won't happen anymore that we'll start to see and teams really want to invest in this stuff they'll start hiring guys who are not baseball writers you know who are not baseball fans who did not apply necessarily because it's baseball um the uh geez i'm forgetting his name, but there's this extremely famous basketball bettor who has...

Fulgaris. There you go, yeah. So his guy, the quant that he hired to make him all his money, is not a basketball guy. He just does the math. He does this extremely high level math for him, but the basketball knowledge is sort of not as important to him it's the math knowledge that's important and so it'll be interesting to see whether that stays the same as well yeah way out of way out of my league by the way in this conversation uh yeah well that's interesting i, because there was a conversation on one of the last couple Rani Jazerly and Joshian podcasts about managers and how in other sports you don't have to have playing experience to be a manager. That baseball is the only one where almost without exception you have to have been a professional player to get that job.

have been a professional player to get that job. I wonder whether baseball will be behind the curve in the same way with GMs, if there are a couple examples of basketball quant types who are GMs, but none in baseball. I don't know. It doesn't seem like there's as much of a disconnect there, because certainly front offices are are enthusiastic about employing those sorts of people uh neil huntington played college ball and four years later he was the assistant director of player development for the expos so he went in the player development track dayton moore played college ball then coached college ball then went into scouting so those are two that i looked up just now yeah there there is a perception that you don't have to have played anymore to be a gm

but you have to you you almost have to have played somewhere it seems like you don't have to have been good you don't have to have made the majors maybe not even the minors but college though yeah you gotta have college ball pretty much yeah unless you're i mean unless you're there's there's probably there's always going to be a few exceptions did rick evans play rick evans rick hawn i don't know um well did did luna play i don't think Luno played. Yeah, I don't know if Luno played. Luno looks like a player. His Wikipedia page doesn't mention any playing experience. Yeah, Hans doesn't, but it's short.

This is clearly the shortest Wikipedia page for a GM. Clearly. His entire page is shorter than Sestouli's intro. Four paragraphs and two of those paragraphs are... One of them ends in a comma. Wow. The first sentence ends in a comma. It's not even a sentence. It's three paragraphs with four paragraph breaks. Yeah, someone needs to update that.

All right. Jeez, Ben, goodness gracious. We're already pushing a half hour. Well, we did a short one yesterday. All right. Mine's going to be three minutes, okay? Sure. So I was asked a question the other day about Mike Trout in a Q&A by an angels blogger, and it brought up the fact that after Trout had the best year ever for a 20-year-old, depending on your war metric, he's on pace this year to maybe have the best season ever for a 21-year-old, depending on your war metric. And so I started wondering, what sort of odds would you need in order to bet against him making the Hall of Fame at this point? would you need in order to bet against him making the Hall of Fame at this point? Or I guess another way of saying it is what sort of odds would you need to bet on him making the Hall of Fame at this

point? And so I just want to ask you about a few players, and I want you to just give me your percentage likelihood that that player makes the Hall of Fame. And to give you a little bit of context, at any given point, there seems to be throughout history about 13 to 21 players under the age of 30 playing at any given time who will make the Hall of Fame. So about, you know, like not quite two per each age year, but just about that. Okay. So it's not a small number of Hall of Famers that we're watching right now, but I always like the idea of being able to identify the Hall of Famer very early and to enjoy their career. I don't feel like we necessarily always get to do that because there's so much uncertainty

about it. Dylan Bundy might be a Hall of Famer, but we're going to spend the first couple of years wondering, is Dylan Bundy going to pan out? Is Dylan Bundy going to be good this week for my fantasy team? Is he going to help the Orioles? Are they going to trade him when he gets close to free agency? You know, we get so focused in the day-to-day, but Trout has made it easy, because I feel like Trout has established very early on that we are watching a Hall of Fame career from scratch, and we can just sit back and enjoy it. We can watch 20 years of this knowing that this guy is going to be super famous forever,

and that 80 years from now or 60 years from now, we can tell people Mike Trout stories, and they'll know who Mike Trout is, and that's a really good thing. That's a great thing. So I want to just identify a couple guys who – or figure out just how likely we think it is based on what they've done so far. So Mike Trout, what are the odds Mike Trout makes the Hall of Fame? I guess I'll say 40. Oh, my word. That's so low.

Goodness gracious. I mean – I'd say 80. I'd say a solid 80 wow i mean he's he's what eight years away from even qualifying for for making the hall of fame it's just i mean the the talent is there i mean he's playing at a hall of fame level right now certainly but i mean you said they're whatever 15 to 20 Hall of Famers under 30, but he's, he's far, far away from 30. If a guy is, looks like a potential Hall of Famer at 29, he's, he has a lot of that Hall of Fame production under his belt already. Whereas Trout just has

a season and a half of that. Yeah, I know. but you remember that Starlin Castro unfiltered that I did about how if you – Yeah, right. I mean if all you knew about Trout, if you knew nothing about him except for how many plate appearances he had at this age, you did not know how good they were or what his – whether he was a good prospect or what position he plays or what his skill set is. If all you knew was how many plate appearances he had, you'd be able to say with some confidence that he'd have like a 30% or 40% chance just on that because not many guys have 1,100 plate appearances

by the time they're age 21 season. So you don't give him any extra credit for being the best player in baseball for two years in a row at this age? Yeah, sure. best player in baseball for two years in a row at this age uh yeah sure um and arguably having like an like an like a very diverse skill set that i think you could debate which skill sets are going to age best at this age but you know i mean people seem to like guys with diverse skill sets and with speed and athleticism and I mean, he's got that. Gosh.

I mean, 80 just... Do you realize he's already, I think, 19th in career war for Angels? 80 just sounds too high. 40 is absurd. If you want to... I mean, I will take your money, Ben. Yeah, you're right. I had forgotten about the thing that you had written about Castro.

Okay, well, I'll say in light of that, if just the plate appearances alone makes him 30 to 40, then I guess how good the plate appearances have been, I'll put him at like 60. Okay, fair enough. Split the difference. All right, Starlin Castro. 25. Oh, so you know, I go way low on him now.

I'm off the bit. Because of this season? Because, yeah, I mean, he just hasn't, to me, he hasn't really developed into the player. So I knock him down to four. You know, there's this episode of The Simpsons where Homer's trying to lose weight, and it shows the scale, and the scale keeps like,

you know, the scale goes up to a number, and he goes, ah, and then it goes down to a number, and he goes, woo-hoo, and then it goes up. You know how scales are. This is like you. You say so many sounds before you answer that I'm guessing like, what's he going to say? Oh, he's going to say three. He's going to say three.

But then you don't say three. Then you change it to like, and I go, he's going to say 75. All right. So I say 4% for Castro. Wow. What would you have said before this season? 2023. Man.

So it changes that much in three months? It does in this case, yeah. Okay. Not a Castro guy anymore. Not a Castro guy. But also, I mean, I think that it's a significant thing to be hitting 230. Yeah. It's significant. Yes to be hitting 230. Yeah. It's significant.

Yes, you're right. Okay, who's next? Buster Posey. Okay, Buster Posey. Just because we've already seen him have one serious injury. Oh, my gosh. Hang on. Out of 654 players who are under 30 this year, Starling Castro has the worst war on baseball reference.

He's 654th. He's at negative 1.4 war. That's not very cool. He has a 600 OPS, 594 OPS. Posey, I'll say 45. 45? Yeah, I mean, he's – I think he is probably ahead of the median Hall of Famer at this stage in his career. But the catcher thing worries me, so I wouldn't – yeah, 45 seems slightly high to me.

But just because he's a catcher. seems slightly high to me but like just because he's a catcher um so i i like his i like his his potential to to to move to another position i think he has a good skill set to move to another position at a later point but uh yeah i'd go like 36 37 no 37 okay uh all right uh steven strasburg Steven Strasburg 25 I'll say like 14 Clayton Kershaw 35 35 you have him 35 and Strasburg 25

yep they're like the same age yep I don't like this game at all I'll say I'll say 37 for Kershaw. Okay. That seems high. I think these pitching ones are too high.

We're too high on these pitching ones. Matt Harvey. 10. Okay. I'll say 10. I don't know how you have Strasburg so much higher than harvey but oh maybe i do yeah actually i think that's fair that's fair that's a it is reasonable to have strasburg higher than harvey it's also reasonable not to i i don't have a problem with that uh dustin pedroia hmm uh that's an interesting one because he's been around for a while. How close is he now?

What's his career? Well, I'm on reference, so I can tell you that on reference he has 36 war and you need about 60. That's like halfway there. Yeah, 62 gets you basically to the Alamar Biggio. And he is almost 30. I guess I would say he has the MVP and stuff. I guess I'd say I'm trying to remember what I said about other guys

because all of these, even if they sound okay in isolation, sound awful in comparison to everyone else. I mean, I guess if i gave posy 45 i had to give pedroia 45 at least i'll give him give him a 50 okay and i'll give pedroia 50 i'll give pedroia 50 51 okay uh one dollar uh and then, okay. Last one. Last one. Uh, well, yeah. Last one. Jose Iglesias. You laugh, but I mean, you know, Omar, Omar might get there and he won't get there if he gets there. No, he won't get there. You don't think Omar is going to get there? You don't, I mean, I don't know. What do you, probably not, but I don't know. I could see i mean there's gonna be a push

there's gonna be a push yeah i guess so um jose iglesias uh point uh point oh five okay so one in one in five thousand yeah okay uh i'll say one in 5,000. Yeah. Okay. I'll say one in 3,700. Okay. All right. That's the show. You're pretty high on Jose Iglesias. Are we? That's like...

You are. Oh, I am? Yeah, relative to you. I think I'm probably too high on him too. All right. Podcast out. Okay. Is that a relevant reference?

Sure. Is that a relevant reference? Sure. Is that timely? Sure. Tomorrow is the email show. That's our last show of the week. So please send us emails at podcast at baseballperspectives.com. Last time I checked, I think we could still use some. So we'll be back tomorrow.