Effectively Wild: A FanGraphs Baseball Podcast - Effectively Wild Episode 998: The Podcast’s (and Baseball’s) Future

Episode Date: December 28, 2016

Ben and Sam announce Sam’s upcoming departure from the podcast and Effectively Wild’s future at FanGraphs with Ben and Jeff Sullivan, and then discuss several big questions about baseball’s next 50 years.

Some trees will bend, and some will fall, but then again, so will us all. Let's turn our prayers to outrageous stares stairs And mark our page In a future age Good morning and welcome to episode 998 of Effectively Wild, the daily podcast from Baseball Prospectus, brought to you by The Play Index, Baseball Reference, and our Patreon supporters. I'm Sam Miller of ESPN, along with Ben Lindberg of The Ringer. Hi, Ben.

Hello. We moved our router. You know, we moved from our house and then we moved back to our house. And we moved our router. And so tonight, I was planning to record in the Honda Fit. And I went over, sat down,

logged on to the Skype, and it said no internet connection. Things change. How fitting. Because the fit. Yeah, I wasn't even thinking about that. Also fitting because we have an announcement to make and it's an announcement that I think a lot of you have maybe expected to hear and hoped not to hear after each of our many job changes. And we're up to four combined job changes since

the start of this podcast. And somehow we have managed to keep podcasting together all this time, despite a couple of close calls. But I am sorry to say that our luck has run out in that respect. Yeah, we're not going to podcast together anymore. No, that is your last week as the co-host of Effectively Wild after four and a half years and what will have been a thousand episodes or even more if you count the one we recorded from the future. Oh, that's true. One thousand and one. Yeah. You did go on vacation a few times, but yes, close enough.

But Ben, it's not all that bad, is it? Well, I'm going to miss you and everyone's going to miss you. And yes, in a minute, I will have additional news about the podcast future, which I hope will be bright, but we can take a moment to celebrate your contribution, I think, to this podcast, which would not have existed, at least in this form, without you. And I don't know about you, but this podcast has been, I think, maybe the most consistently rewarding part of my professional life over the past four and a half years. And I've worked at a bunch of really good places with a bunch of great people and had a lot of really

great opportunities. But this podcast, I don't know whether it is something that is true of all podcasts or whether this one is unusual or whether it's just a product of the fact that we have done so many episodes and we kind of became a part of people's routines and help them go to sleep at night or wake up in the morning or wherever it fit into their busy lives. But the reader interaction and listener interaction and feedback that has been a constant part of this podcast has been great. And I guess that is the best thing about kind of living your life on the internet and maybe also the worst thing sometimes depending on what you write. But for us, it has been great. And I'm

very grateful for all the things that this podcast has led to. I mean, we wrote a book together, we ran a baseball team for a summer. None of that would have happened without this podcast. And all the people that we have met and befriended and gotten to know, whether it's actual in-person know or internet know because of this podcast, I never would have anticipated all of that. So I'm really glad that we had as much time as we did. Yeah, me too. The first few hundred episodes, when it was truly daily, when it was sincerely daily, to the point that various famous dead people's birthdays weren't even acknowledged because Ben was so intent on it being daily. I never, you know, I never did understand why it was so important to you that we never miss a day. And in the same way, I mean, to some degree, in the same way as an editor, you were always intent on there being you know 11 pieces up

every day and i always used to wonder also this is sort of this i think this was the same part of your character your uh your personality but i never understood why that i would i would submit like if i was supposed to write monday wednesday and friday and i'd finish something early i'd turn it into you on like say monday and be like, here, this is for Wednesday. And 10 minutes later, it'd be up. You just couldn't wait to post things. Well, your articles were good. All right. Couldn't keep them to myself. Well, anyway, I never, I would have been skipping days so quickly and so regularly. And I think that those first couple hundred episodes when you kept us on that schedule, and it just was never even a voluntary thing, we were just gonna record

an episode, it was good. It got this into the rhythm of my life in a way that I never thought, oh, I have to, I never thought I have to record a podcast now. It was always, oh, it's time to record a podcast now, which is a subtle difference, it's time to record a podcast now, which is a subtle difference, but one that made it feel very much part of my life. Just like you never think, oh, I have to shower. It's just like, it's time to shower. I guess sometimes you do.

But in that way, it was very satisfying. And it never, it was sometimes stressful, sometimes made me anxious. Sometimes it got in the way, but it never felt like work. And I really appreciated it. I also got to get my dad merch. Like I got my dad a coffee mug for Christmas.

And it was really cool to have that existing. And we had nothing to do with it. Nothing to do with it, yeah. It just happened spontaneously without any intervention from us. It was great, and I was somewhat embarrassed to order fan merch. So I actually did. I ordered it under somebody else's name so that nobody would possibly skim the list and go, huh. You know, by the way, we also did two live casts that aren't in the count either.

So really, when you think about it, we've already done a thousand. This is episode 1001, if you think about it. That's true. We did a couple of Patreon only broadcasts. So, yeah. Well, we've had an inkling that this could be coming for a while and we haven't wanted to keep anyone in the dark. And it's been very hard for you not to say

something but before we said something we wanted to figure out what we would be saying and we wanted to explore every option to keep this going together and recently we found out that that wasn't going to happen and once we found out that it wasn't going to happen i think i had always sort of figured that if either of us left that would would be it. And I kind of continued to figure that until it basically became a reality. And then it was very hard for me to let go. And it's just the community that has sprung up around this show that I worried would not continue to thrive without the show being here. I don't know, maybe it's reached the point where it's self-sustaining, but there's Banish to the Pen, the excellent site started by listeners of Effectively Wild that has served as a springboard to other

sites for some writers. There's a Facebook group of almost 5,000 members where people just perform random acts of kindness constantly for each other. There's one listener who posted something about wanting to get his dad something related to the 1984 Tigers. And another listener just sent him an autographed photo of three 1984 Tigers just for free, just so that he could give that to his dad for Christmas. And stuff like that is happening all the time. And another listener just sent us big boxes of delicious ramen recently for no reason, not expecting anything in return, but

just because of this podcast. And that sort of thing made it very hard for me to let go. And I consulted some long time Effectively Wild listeners and got their thoughts on whether they'd like to see the podcast continue. And I am on record as not believing in legacies being tarnished. But even so, I didn't want to try to do an Uncanny Valley version of the show that was not true to the spirit of what we've been doing and try to prolong its life without preserving that spirit. And I think there were really only a couple people I could imagine possibly doing it with and having it be sort of similar or spiritually similar to what we have done and to be able to keep it analytical, but also whimsical and spontaneous and all the things we've managed to do.

And I think there are probably only a couple of people that you would give your blessing to being your successor on the show. Yeah, but unfortunately then Antonin Scalia did die. Right. But one of those people is Jeff Sullivan, who is one of our favorite writers and one of our favorite people, period, and one of our favorite Effectively Wild guests. And he was on just a couple episodes ago. And fortunately, he was interested in filling your shoes and taking your place. And it won't be the same show without you,

but Jeff and I will be continuing Effectively Wild and moving the podcast to Fangraphs. So it will be hosted on a different site, but you can still get it the same way you've always gotten it. If you are subscribed, the episodes will keep showing up and it will be me and Jeff and that will be that. And Baseball Perspectives has been an excellent home for the past few years. It's obviously where you and I worked when we started the podcast. And I think just as highly of Fangraphs and David Appelman and the whole crew over there. And of course, none of this would be possible without the incredible support you've shown on Patreon. The show probably would have ended some time ago if not for that, and probably couldn't continue

now if not for that. So thanks to your generosity, the podcast will continue, and I hope we'll be the place to answer your crazy hypothetical questions for years to come. And by the way, for fans of Fangraphs Audio and Carson Sestouli, I can also happily say that his podcast will be continuing too. So we're losing Sam, but in Jeff, we're gaining another brilliant baseball mind who is prone to making morbid observations. Good. All right. Well, I wish you the best in all of your ESPN endeavors. And we still have a few episodes to go here.

Yeah, I brought a topic. All right. What is it? Well, since you and I aren't going to be able to talk about baseball on a podcast anymore, I thought I would maybe ask about a few things that we won't get to talk about over the next few decades. So this is just sort of the next, I don't know, the next few decades of baseball hot questions. So I'm just going to ask them, and then you can tell me what you think the answer is. And then maybe we'll talk about it.

Maybe we won't. Okay. Doesn't matter. It doesn't matter to you. It's all done. You got nothing to lose. All right. So, Ben, do you believe that we will ever see a two-sport player again

whose worse sport is any worse than, say, Deion Sanders' worst sport was or Bo Jackson's worst sport was. So in other words, will we see a two sport player who is as good at both sports as Deion was at baseball? Or you could just say, will we ever see a two sport player in the major leagues? Will we see a two sport player? Are we putting any constraints on what sports qualify? Are we talking only major four sports? I think we're talking about whatever the major four are at the time. And I mean, I wouldn't. If it were a soccer player, I would count that. But there are, otherwise, no, we're not going golf. For the moment, we're not going UFC or bass fishing or anything of the sort. And can we count non-overlapping stints or does it have to be simultaneous? In other words, can you be a major league baseball player, retire from baseball and then be a NBA player or does it have to be same time? Here's how I'm going to answer that.

You have, it has to be, there has to be some intermingling of the careers. So you could play football for two years, baseball for nine, football for one and never share a season. But the first game of one sport must be followed by at least one game with the other sport, which then must be followed by the last game of the original sport. Even if that game is then followed by the last game of the second sport. Well, I hate saying never because that's a really long time and I feel like we're all too short-sighted and we all make decisions based on current events and have a hard time projecting

into the future but I can't imagine it happening again I just can't envision it happening I think too much has changed I think some sports are just too physically punishing, too physically demanding I think athletes are

too good now. I think you have to be so specialized in one sport to be good enough to compete at the highest level of that sport. I think the money has exploded so much that there's just very little financial incentive for a player to do this. If anything, you're jeopardizing your financial future by trying to do it. So the only reason that you'd really do it is purely for competitiveness and proving you could, essentially. And I just don't know that anyone could. I think athletes are specializing earlier, not across the board, but in many cases. And I think the expertise needed to get to that level is just too great.

I mean, there's no one now that anyone's even really talking about doing it. Like, you know, I guess people have talked about Thibaut, who wasn't really all that great at his primary sport, and no one took his bid for the secondary sport very seriously. But there aren't prospects you can point to and say, oh, he might do it, really. No one even seriously entertains the notion or ever really expresses a desire to do it. So I just, if sports remain anything like their current conditions, I can't see it happening. Yeah, I feel the same way. And then I have to remind myself that like Deion Sanders was playing football 10 years ago and was playing baseball 15 years ago, which is not that long. I mean, it's not like they were playing in black and white. This was, these were, hey, this was squarely in the modern era of baseball that this was happening and it was happening like all the time like there were three very

high profile two sports stars who were both solidly contributing in their lesser sport and stars or very close to it in their strong sport. Like Brian Jordan was three times got MVP votes, which I sometimes forget. He was a 33 win player in his career. He had three seasons over five war. He had one of seven war. He was a really good ball player.

He also incidentally had black ink on his football reference page, although just barely. And was, you know, he didn't play football very long. And by the time he made it to the majors, he did give up the NFL. That said, you know, the Brian Jordan, Bo Jackson, Deion Sanders era, it just seemed like totally normal. And that's the most demanding of the four sports, right? I mean, I guess maybe the clash between maybe hockey and baseball have the least in common culturally and maybe skills-wise. I don't know if that's true, but one is a very Northern cold weather sport and the other is a very Southern and California and Latin American sport. So maybe the odds of finding a player who grew up elite at both of those is less than where baseball and football, you know, coexist so readily.

But anyway, I'm off topic. Football is the demanding one. So it's really not that hard to imagine. Like a basketball schedule can't be 20% as physically punishing as a football schedule, I wouldn't think. just give up their off season when they have to rest and get themselves in shape again for that kind of punishment to devote all of that rest time to baseball, which I guess we're saying you could finish your football career and then play baseball again, which again is really difficult to do if you have gone years without playing baseball. Like, I mean, Deion Sanders was, how much of his baseball career

was overlapping with his football career? Like most of it, right? Yeah, most of it. He played nine seasons in the majors over the span of 13 years. And in all 13 of those years, he started his football career the same year and ended it four years later. Yeah. He took some years off he did take some years off uh when he got older and i guess what he came back i guess yeah well hired but anyway yeah he was right he was playing football for a couple years there where he was not playing baseball but and you could make the you could make the case that a player who's really good in one sport wouldn't want to be distracted by or have his legacy in that sport

potentially put at risk by playing another sport but deon sanders is like an all-time he's like an inner circle hall of famer isn't he in football i don't know i think he might be and uh i don't even know if i don't does football have a hall of fame yes de. Deion Sanders Hall of Fame. Yeah. Inducted 2011. I think he is. I think he's really good at football. Like I think that, should I ask somebody? Who's on here? Who knows football? Because I would like to say something without being wrong if possible pick brett colin jonah rj or rob who knows football jonah jonah you know football oh meg knows football oh jonah's typing beyond inner circle hall of famer or just good i'm asking meg to eight times Pro Bowl 2 times Super Bowl

Champion clearly very good Alright well anyway So the point is that nobody's Very very few people have a Legacy that was That was going to be as great as Dion's What was my point? That

You wouldn't want to jeopardize your legacy As a great in one sport yeah right exactly in another exactly but dion had nothing to you know yeah fill it in yourself people so yeah i mean it really wasn't that long ago i mean since, guys have gotten bigger and faster and stronger and more punishing. So even since then, I imagine it's gotten harder and careers have gotten shorter and the damage, everyone is more aware of the damage. So I just, I can't imagine it happening. I'm now having many conversations about Deion Sanders on Gchat. I've quit caring, except now I have conversations going,

and I care greatly about conversations. Let's move on. You said no, I say yes. Okay. I think basketball. I think a baseball-basketball crossover makes a lot of sense. Yeah. I mean, it hasn't been that long since you know the other thing the other thing mark hendrickson yeah uh but the other thing about the basketball uh baseball possibility is that

baseball players are so tall now like they didn't used to be this tall but now they're all tall although i guess basketball players are taller than they used to be too all right uh i'm told twice inner circle hall of famer for deon sanders okay all right second question do you think that in the next 50 years the dh will be expanded to cover positions other than pitcher no okay i think so it seems like yeah it's weird because, you know, in 1973, I think if I'd asked you that, you would have said yes. Like there was a great deal of concern among DH skeptics that this was a slippery slope to defensive units and offensive units. And yet 40 years later, 43 years later, it seems much less likely. And yet 40 years later, 43 years later, it seems much less likely.

And I don't really, like you wouldn't see, there's no chance that there's going to be separate units where you'd be able to DH your whole team. That's not even close. Like that's a ridiculous notion right now. And then just having one extra feels weird, feels like a strange compromise. So I think you're right. I agree. I think that're right. I agree. I think that that is off the table. All right.

Yeah. I mean, it's been this long and most people weren't even alive and able to remember baseball without the DH. And yet we're still fighting about the DH. It's still like the most common baseball argument. So I don't know whether that makes MLB more or less likely to expand it because I guess having conversation and debate is probably a good thing, but I don't think there's a pressing reason for it.

We got the DH because offense was down and obviously offense could be down again. And maybe that's the reason why there will be a DH in both leagues. again and maybe that's the reason why there will be a dh in both leagues but i just no position is even close to being as bad at hitting as as pitchers were and are and so i don't know if there's the impetus for it that there was then or or if there ever will be all right clayton kershaw currently has 52 war i believe on baseball reference and Greg Maddox and Randy Johnson both had 104 war the only modern pitcher ahead of them is Roger Clemens and he's well ahead and I think there's only like three or four pitchers at all that are ahead so let's say Clemens is out of reach but Johnson and Clemens are 104 Kershaw is halfway there does he get there i don't think he

gets there i i hate to be the the no guy and everything but i think even if you have an incredible first half of your career is as good as anyone's first half of a career basically like clayton kershaw's i don't think you can bet on having a second half of your career like Randy Johnson and Greg Maddox, which are two of the best second halves of a career ever. Yeah, but let me give you the counter argument, which is that Kershaw is not halfway done with his career. He's only 28. Yeah. He's got, I mean, he's quite possibly got 13 years left or so. Yeah, he's quite possibly got a lot less than that well he might

only yeah he might so yeah i don't know what his like median career outcome would be but i would think that a guy who's 28 i mean he's obviously been very durable so far and healthy and mostly no really major serious injuries, but still don't think you could really expect any pitcher to pitch more than double a nine-year career. Okay. So now move from Kershaw to the field. Barring a rewriting of how we calculate pitcher war or how we value pitcher contributions. Given the current formula for war, do you think any pitcher will ever get to 100 again? Or is the lack of innings, the reduced role that pitchers have prohibitive? I'll say someone will get there, yeah.

It's definitely getting harder. But if you're giving me every pitcher from now till eternity, I will take the field. Well, I'm not. I'm giving you every picture from now for 50 years. But the thing is, and I would say, I mean, I also would have a tendency to say yes to this question. But nobody, the reason I ask it is because nobody is even close. If you look at active players, there's a lot of players who are, you know, considerably older than Kershaw, have had long and distinguished careers, and we think of them as, you know, good as, you know, some of them are Hall of Famers. And yet, when you look at them, like nobody is remotely close. Like Sabathia, this is actually what inspired this question. Sabathia's war is 58. He is the active leader.

Felix Hernandez is 51. Zach Granke is 51. He's 32 years old. Verlander is 51. He's 33 years old. Hamels is 50. He's 32 years old. You got Colon.

You got Lester. He's 41. He's 32 years old. To find anybody, Max Scherzer is 37. He's 31 years old. find anybody, Max Scherzer's 37, he's 31 years old. The only player under 30 who's even really worth talking about here is probably, well, Chris Sale is at 31 more. He's a year younger than Kershaw and he's 21 wins behind him. Bumgarner is two years younger than Kershaw. He's 28 wins behind him. And that's it. I mean, that is like, seriously, that is it. There is nobody else

under 30 who's even over 20 wins above replacement at this point. So there is, I mean, we have an entire, I agree 50 years is a long time, but we have an entire generation here that we're looking at that is not going to get to 70. And I'm not sure exactly, other than Kershaw, and I'm not sure exactly why that is, because it wasn't that long ago that Pedro and Maddox and Randy Johnson and Clemens were, you know, four of the eight greatest pitchers of all time and three of them got to 100. And Kershaw and Clemens got to 100 in almost 40.

But here it is. Well, yeah. In Clemens' case, you know why, right? I guess. So we have talked about that in the past, why all of those guys happened to coincide at this period when offense was seemingly at an all-time high and yet four of the best pitchers ever were pitching at that time. And we've talked about whether maybe because of expansion or because of PEDs or whatever, there was just more variation among players and it was easier to be an outlier. And so maybe that's the case, but 50 years is such a long time that I will just say something

will happen. And I don't know what it would be because all the trends are pointing toward fewer innings for starters and making it harder and harder for a pitcher to get there. But who knows? Maybe bionic arms come in at some point in that 50 years or no one tears ligaments anymore, or you can repair any torn ligament and then guys have longer careers. Although then I guess you'd also have a higher talent level and it would be harder to distinguish yourself. But I'll say that something happens. Some sort of freakish talent comes along. All right. In 50 years, what will be the

record for strikeouts in a game? All right. So we've talked about this too, how obviously strikeout rates keep rising, but at the very upper end, strikeouts per game don't really keep rising, which seems to be because pitchers get pulled earlier in games. They can't throw as many pitches and maybe batters are better and make them work harder and all that. So even though pitchers strike out more guys generally, we still haven't seen the 21 strikeout game, but I'm going to say that we see it even though complete games are becoming a dying breed. I will say that we certainly it even though complete games are becoming a dying breed i will say that we certainly see that and huh you're giving me 50 years i mean what was the like what was the first 20 strikeout

game clemens clemens in yeah clemens in 86 and steve carlton had 19, I think, at one point. So if we go back 50 years, like in 1966, what was the record for most strikeouts in a game up to that point? You could do a quick play index maybe. Promo code BP. Yeah. All right. So give me, what year did you want? Through 66.

All right. Through 66, the most strikeouts in a nine-inning game, this is crucial because there was like guys who had like 21 strikeouts in a nine-inning game. This is crucial because there was like guys who had like 21 strikeouts in a 26-inning game. Three guys, Koufax twice, and Bob Feller had 18. Feller had 18 in 1938. So in 50 years, it's only gone up to the max. And that's with 50 years of like hard momentum towards strikeouts. And it's not a guarantee that the momentum towards strikeouts will continue.

That maybe we will reach a peak or maybe baseball will step in and say strikeouts suck. Also hard momentum toward fewer innings or shorter starts too. And that's barring the bionic arm. That momentum does seem to continue seem likely yeah right all right well i'll say another two i'll say we get to 22 i'll take the over i'm saying 23 okay all right so will we have in 50 years will we have a reliever who produces a era of zero for a season in a like in a season and it's got to be yeah 50 50 innings or more i'll say no i think i think no i mean it's easier to imagine that obviously because you could have someone who has a fluky year with a bunch of unearned runs and doesn't get one charge to him.

But even so, I don't think so. Yeah, the only reason that I would say maybe is that, well, two reasons. One is that I'm play indexing promo code PP, but anecdotally it feels to me that, huh, not really actually. Anecdotally, it feels to me that, not really, actually. I was going to say, it feels like we've seen a real rise in extreme low ERAs from relievers recently. But Rodney set the all-time record. Fernando Rodney set the all-time record in 2012, and Zach Britton just broke it.

But once you get past him, it's 1990, 1986, 1964, 2006 and then wade davis 2015 2002 and 2011 and 2014 so i guess there have been 11 years in history in which really read an era of one or lower and one two And one, two, three, four, five of those 11 have come in the last five years. And three more came in the five years before that. So yeah, so it is accelerating. So we're seeing an acceleration of extremely low ERAs. But the other thing is that I'm imagining a world where better and better pitchers are used in relief, which I think we're seeing. Like, I think that Chapman, for instance, is a major league average starter right now. And they just, you know, other than like a spring training micro controversy, it's never even really brought up. It's just, yeah, he's a closer.

controversy. It's never even really brought up. It's just, yeah, he's a closer. And I think that, I still think it's clearly, obviously, without a doubt, the default that if you have a pitcher who's a good starter, he goes to starting. But I don't think that's necessarily true for 50 years. And I think if you took, I think if you gave me 10 of the top 20 starters in baseball, which I don't know if this is going to happen, I don't think it will, but if you gave me half of the top 20 starters in baseball, made them all relievers, within 10 years, you'd get a zero. Yeah. I mean, it's really, really hard to do. You have to be incredibly lucky. You have to have everything bounce your way. You have to not allow a single home run all year. So it's tough, but sure. I mean, it's possible, but I'm still going to say no.

I really wish I hadn't said the thing about Chapman being an average starter because now I've undercut myself. If I hadn't said that Chapman was a league average starter, then I could say, well, we've never seen it. We've never seen it tried. But Chapman, if I believe that Chapman is at least a league average starter and he's never allowed fewer than 10 earned runs like that's not even close to a zero era like he's got to allow 10 fewer earned runs all 10 of them and so the fact that he hasn't even

gotten close i have to change one of my opinions here they both can't exist so i'm now saying chapman is garbage he can't. Clearly couldn't hack it. 50 innings within Fernando Rodney's 74 and two thirds innings when he would have had a zero ERA. So if his outings had been distributed differently and his season had ended earlier or something like that, it could have happened. So it's definitely not out of the realm of possibility, but I'll still say no. The thing too is it's Rodney. Yeah. All right. Mike Trout. First off, how many MVP awards?

All right. Counting, starting with two, starting at two. Four. Okay. Okay. So home runs, hits, RBIs, runs, war. Which all-time record does he break? If I told you he breaks one. And do you take none over any of them?

Do you take none over any of them? Hmm. Do you take none over all of them, I guess? Over all of them. He's not going to, well, I mean, he could age incredibly well and then he probably will there's a very good chance that he will i mean he's been extremely durable he keeps himself in good shape he's you know he has a good build whatever criteria you want to try to use to project how someone will age a decade from now he probably holds up pretty well in that category so say he does

i mean he's not like like there's nothing in him to this point that you would say he's gonna be the all-time home run king except that he might just play at a high level forever right like you know he's like yeah he's topped out at 41 And it's possible that he could Hit more than that at some point Or he could just hit 35 For the next 15 years or something So it's you know Hank Aaron didn't hit more than 45

Until he was 37 years old Yeah so Definitely possible Hits you know like obviously he's not a Super high batting average guy, but again, like he could play forever. And he walks too much. Yeah, he walks too much.

So I guess I'll say, man, I mean, obviously he's been the best war through his age, so it's not a stretch to say that he could be the best war ever. He started very young. He'd probably age well, but i still wouldn't give him better than even odds to do that but would i give him better than even odds to do something at a historic rate like if he does one it's almost like if he does one of these things well enough to be the best ever he'll do more than one well enough to be the best ever. It kind of seems like that. Like, you know, if he hangs on long enough to be the all-time hit king or the all-time homer king,

then he'd probably be the all-time war king too because he'll have played forever at a really high level and he's off to this incredible start. So if I ask you, is Mike Trout going to be a 7.2 win player next year? You'd say, yes, he is. And if I asked, will he be a 7.2 win player for the next three years? You would say yes.

How many years will you go? So next year will be his age 25 season. Yeah, and this is an average. So if he's 10 wins this year and 4 the next or, you know, 4.4 the next, that counts. Right, yeah. I'll go and 7.2 would be his worst full season to date. By like two, yeah, right. And it's, you know, two and a half or so below his average. Yeah. And he's been 20. He's been 20 for some of those seasons

20 years old Yes, yeah Of course he's also been extremely healthy And who knows He could, you know, miss half a season And that could screw up everything But I'll say I would take that through his age 32 season

All right, well that doesn't get him there He needs to be a 7.2 win player through 40 on average. That's what he needs to do. He needs to produce 7.2 wins a year until he's 40. That's really hard. It is really hard. Yeah. It's why it's a record.

Yes. Yeah. So I guess I'll say none is still the likeliest outcome. All right. Okay. Trout hits free agency in four years. What will his contract be? $500 million.

So he'll be coming off his age 28 season. You think he'll do $10,500 or $11,500? Yeah. Wow. I don't know i i mean god that sounds crazy it does it does assuming the economy is relatively the same and assuming the cba gets ratified again and baseball doesn't change dramatically the thing is that like i just said That I think he'll continue to be You know through his age 29 Or 27 season that's what We're talking about after 28

After 28 so that's only I think I think it's after 28 He'll be a free agent yeah Signed through 2020 yeah so after 28 after 28 so that's four more Years and I am assuming That he'll continue to be the best player in baseball Over those four years

and will still be a super super superstar so on the one hand it's hard to imagine any team making that sort of like crazy 12-year commitment at this point but if anyone is ever going to get that again it would be Trout who I'm envisioning hitting the market as the best player ever through that age. So and we just said we thought he would age well and he's good at everything and so on and so on. So, yeah, I think I just don't know if anyone's going to come along between now and then and bump the max up high enough for him to get there. Like if the max is like 35 for a single season now, I don't know, you know, maybe Harper becomes incredible again and he hits the market first and he sets a new high and then Trout can sort of build on that because he'll have been better than Harper. high and then Trout can sort of build on that because he'll have been better than Harper but alright

I'll lower to what's the biggest contract ever now like just in terms of total dollars I think it's 320 yeah Stanton was what 325 yeah and that's Stanton like Trout is so much better than Stanton well and also

it was it was an extension it was an extension so he didn't hit free agency it was also like nobody at the time expected it to get anywhere near the end like he had to opt out that crazy opt out and it was for 13 years which is so unusual yes a 13 year deal is very unusual and so he was very young at the time. He was much younger than Trout will be. So which explains maybe the 13 years. All right. Well, 400 then.

That's disappointing. I mean, definitely 400, right? Like, if he comes into free agency, you know what, with like the— I mean, there's no reason to expect him to get worse by that point really so if he comes into the season i mean over his last three years he's been worth like 21 wins or no that's not right he's been worth 21 wins above average so but replacement he's been worth 28 over the last three years so i mean you know he's if he comes into that year having continued to be like an eight win player even is there any way that he

wouldn't get 400 no he'll definitely get 400 okay without he'd get 400 today yeah and that's four years from now oh well of course yeah i mean i'm saying i'm saying if it happened today like if he were 28 and hit free agency today, he'd get 400. Right. So then add four years of inflation and that's like getting like 360. Would he get 400 today? Now that I see 400, I go, oh, he'd get 400 today. And then I say a number that's lower than 400.

And I realize how many numbers there are in front of like before 400, like from 275, which is what A-Rod got as free agent to 400, or even from 325 to 400, there's a lot of numbers that you have to surpass first. But yeah, I think you'd get 400. Yeah. And as we've been talking about, it just seems like there are fewer and fewer places to spend. And so you'd channel some of that money into agency. And that's assuming, you know, like the cable bubble and the broadcast bubble won't have burst by then. You know, we're not totally trying to project every aspect of life between now and then. But yeah, I mean, I think he gets 400 for sure. Does he get more than that?

I don't know. Probably not significantly, I guess. or does he get more than that? I don't know. Probably not significantly, I guess. Hey, have people been writing pieces or talking yet about Giancarlo Stanton as having an obscenely club-unfriendly contract yet? I haven't seen it.

I haven't either. I wonder if we're going to get there. Because he played half a season in 2015 and was very good. Then he played most of the season but did get injured in 2016 and was not very good at all. I mean, he wasn't bad, but he wasn't very good. And if he doesn't opt out, that's a heavily backloaded deal. So basically he's going to have a choice when he's 30, whether or not to opt out. And if he doesn't, it is like seven years

and like 220. And I guess seven and 220 in 2020 won't be that crazy, but we just have no idea how John Carlos Stanton is going to age. Next year really seems like it could be the year that we start talking about that. Or if he's good, it could be the year that we start talking about that. Or if he's good, it'll be the year that we never talk about it. So we'll find out. That's a good story for you and Jeff to do. So now around June, I'll let him know.

Set a reminder, Google calendar. Sure. All right. Let's see. Last thing, Ben, in 2066, what franchise will have the longest World Series drought?

There are so many variables here because I don't know how much precedence you'd give to a team that has a long one already't that many droughts longer than that. So between now and then, just so many existing droughts will be broken that I'm not sure that it even really matters. Like, I guess the team that has the longest drought in 2066 won't win one between now and then, right? And probably will have something of a drought already right now probably because because of the 30 teams probably something like 16 or 18 will win a world series in those 50 years uh-huh i don't know that'd be a fun math problem to do on a long drive but let's say 16 to 18 so you've got 12-ish teams that aren't going to win a world series so whoever of those 12 starts with the longest drought would be the answer yeah and of course

we have essentially no ability to project how a team will be you know even like three years from now so it's it's almost fruitless to try to say like you know like the indians have a really long drought now but they are also one of the best teams in baseball now with one of the clearest routes to the playoffs i don't know like things are so unpredictable over that time frame that i don't even know how much like the indians having a pretty good shot in 2017 affects things. Your choices are really, it's going to be one of the Indians, the Rangers, the Astros, the Brewers, the Padres, the Nationals, the Mariners. It's going to be one of those. Maybe, maybe the Rockies, but only if all of those teams win a World Series in the next

50 years. So it's going only if all of those teams win a World Series in the next 50 years. So it's going to be one of those. I honestly, I think that how many, let me sub question, of the 30 teams in Major League Baseball right now, how many of them are in the same city in 50 years? Well, we've been living in a period of a lot of franchise stability. Yeah. Nobody moves anymore. Right. And that has been extremely profitable for everyone so it doesn't seem like a lot of teams would move of course that that's a long time but i'll say of the current 30 i don't know 28 will be in the same place all right i would i think any of those

teams actually i could see any of those teams being it i guess i don't have any reason to think the indians are more likely to win the World Series than any other team that I just named. So I'll stick with them. Yeah, I mean, other than the fact that they probably have the best chance of winning the World Series now. For two of those 50 years, they have a better chance. Yeah.

Which is not a lot to go on. Yeah, I guess I'd go with, I don't know, like if you're talking about a 50-year time frame, then you should give some attention to the market size. Yeah, which is why Cleveland. Right, which makes Cleveland a pretty good choice, but would also maybe work for some of the other teams on that list. Or maybe you could argue that, I don't know, maybe Texas has a harder time because it's so hot there.

Maybe it's harder for them to field a competitive team, although maybe they'll have a indoor stadium sometime soon. So yeah, I mean, I guess the team that has the longest existing drought and also has a fairly small market and low payroll and low attendance, seems to be the most logical choice. All right, let me ask you one more question. Will baseball in the next 50 years ever have another scandal comparable to the steroids era?

Huh. Would you say that there was one in the previous 50 years? I think, I don't know whether you would... Cocaine? No, not cocaine uh i don't know whether cocaine no not cocaine i don't know collusion yeah collusion might is is uh i mean you yeah i think collusion uh no collusion's not on the level of the steroids era i don't know what you would on field really so yeah and it's just not as big like my mom's never heard of collusion. She's heard of steroids. She's heard of Barry Bonds. She's not heard of Peter Uberoth.

But I don't know if you would call it a scandal. I don't know what segregation was like in 1947. Like I don't, I guess it was, it probably wasn't a scandal because I was going to say, I don't know if it was something that like a lot of the country looked at and went, holy cow, can you believe baseball? But I mean, these, these teams were in every city. Baseball was like a trailblazer in that respect and integrating, so. So yeah, I think not in the previous 50 years. I mean, you have the Black Sox and you have the steroids era. So I guess those are your only two the thing is that there's going to be so much new technology that will be making its way into sports like i don't know if it will be a baseball specific scandal because you know things like i don't know who

knows like gene manipulation or just cyborg sort of people getting implants of all kinds. I mean, that's going to be a thing, one would think, and you could easily imagine that being a sort of PED-level scandal. But I don't know that it would be concentrated in baseball or that baseball would bear the brunt of it the way it did with steroids. So I guess I'll say no. All right, let me add one last question. Baseball is currently a nine-ish billion dollar industry, nine or $10 billion industry, I think. And it is, it grows much faster than the economy as a whole, or it has grown much faster than the economy as

a whole. Baseball is huge. It's a huge industry. In 50 years, relative to adjusting for normal real world inflation, will baseball be bigger or smaller than it is right now? Major League Baseball. I mean, obviously it'll be worth more. It'll generate more revenue, but adjusting for normal inflation, will it be bigger or smaller than it is now? I mean, we're coming off a period of incredible growth and profitability. And so it would be tempting to extrapolate continued growth and profitability, but that sort of thing doesn't last forever. And you could say that maybe there will be a broadcast bubble that bursts or, you know, I think it's just generally getting harder for anything to break through the wealth of competing entertainment options out there. And that will continue to be the case. So I would imagine that baseball and almost everything else will probably have a smaller percentage of the mind share in 50 years than it does now, which is certainly

the case now compared to 50 years ago. And yet it is also more profitable than it was 50 years ago. So one doesn't necessarily preclude the other. I'll say it won't be more profitable. I don't know. I'll say, I mean, this has just been such a boom time that I would guess that, I mean, even if that growth slows though, like it will still be growth and so it would still be more and maybe it's silly not to expect it to be more, but I guess I'll say smaller. Yeah. I mean, I think that I would feel fairly confident saying that at some point it will stop growing and maybe maybe even start shrinking but it might grow for a while before then it might have a lot of room to shrink before it comes back to 2016 levels we might think of 2016 as tiny old baseball, you know, in 15 years. I think that

either, yeah, I don't really see a scenario where it shrinks a little. Like I think it either keeps growing like it does, like it is, takes over new parts of the world, takes over new technologies and so on, does what it's been doing basically for the last 15 years, 20 years, or it collapses. And it's just such a small niche thing like, you know, poker on TV or something that we don't even think of it as the big four anymore. I have a hard time seeing it being like 85% of what it is now and just going on like that. 85% of what it is now and just going on like that. So I mean, what if the cable deals go away and suddenly baseball is this regional sport that being a regional sport doesn't get you giant cable deals. So there isn't as much national interest and you're not getting as much from the broadcast packages. the broadcast packages, it's not like everyone suddenly stopped caring about baseball entirely, but the way that baseball has trended toward that regional nature might not pay off as much as it

has for the last decade or so. And when those deals expire, maybe they don't get replaced by deals that are worth as much in the dollars of that day. So I could imagine that happening. Yeah, yeah. I can't. You've made me imagine it. Major League Baseball, advanced media, you know, just split off from MLB, right? And it's kind of its own thing now. So maybe it won't generate as much revenue for baseball as it has been.

So I could see it happening. How old will the oldest player be in the next 50 years? How old will somebody get in the next 50 years? How old will somebody get in the next 50 years? And let's take knuckleballers out of this. So Jamie Moyer made it to 49. Leo Franco made it to 48. And they were, you know, still trying hard. These were not stunts.

Will we see a 50-year-old earn a spot on a – why am I – we're done. We can answer that if you want. I think there are two competing forces. I mean, one, there's better conditioning and better health care, and guys take better care of themselves, and there's better injury prevention and treatment. So on the one hand, there are factors prolonging careers. On the other hand, athletes keep getting better and more specialized and it's harder and harder for old guys to compete with young guys.

And we haven't really seen the oldest player get older, right? I mean, like, you know, Hoyt Wilhelm was 49 in the 70s. And I mean, there's always been someone like that, right? Who's like playing into their mid to late 40s. And no one has really gone beyond that aside from stunts, essentially. So it doesn't seem like there's been any trend toward the oldest being older. So I'll say that won't change. When Jamie Moyer was in his final season, he was 49. He was Jamie Moyer, and he was pitching in Coors.

His K-9 rate was the same as Bob Feller's career K-9 rate. Cross-generational strikeout rate. Fun facts. Yeah. Never bored of them. All right. It's fun, man. Finished.

Talk to you tomorrow. All right, so that will do it for today. Everyone, group hug. We'll get through this together. Again, you can support the podcast on Patreon by going to patreon.com slash effectivelywild. You are directly responsible for this podcast's continued existence. And just so you know what exactly you are pledging your

support for when you donate on Patreon, a bunch of people and parties are getting a piece of that pie. So it's me and still Sam getting a small percentage. It's Baseball Perspectives. It's Fangraphs and Jeff. So things are a little more complicated on the back end than they once were. But all you need to know is that if you keep pledging your support, you'll keep which I expect will be very busy right about now as people process today's news. You can rate, review and subscribe to the podcast on iTunes. And for now, at least you can continue to contact both me and Sam at podcast at baseball prospectus dot com or by messaging us through Patreon. We'll probably have a new email address to tell you about soon so that Jeff can start getting your questions, too. But we'll have more news about that in the coming days. And we've got a couple more episodes to get through this year.

So we will talk to you soon. And again, thanks everyone for all of your support so far. He never comes He never comes He never comes