Effectively Wild Episode 2423: The State of the Stove

Summary

Effectively Wild Episode 2423: The State of the Stove

Date: January 7, 2026
Hosts: Ben Lindbergh (A) & Meg Rowley (B)
Podcast: Effectively Wild – FanGraphs Baseball Podcast

---

Episode Overview

In this episode, Ben and Meg explore the evolving world of Major League Baseball coaching hires, drawing on the news of Daniel Vogelbach—recently retired at age 33—joining the Milwaukee Brewers as a hitting coach. They discuss the merits and flaws of sabermetric stats, prompted by Tommy Pham's advocacy for his personal model "PhamGraphs" and critiques of advanced stats in The Athletic. Other topics include the Blue Jays' aggressive offseason, highlighted by their signing of Japanese star Kazuma Okamoto, state-of-the-market reflections on free agent signings, and the general “temperature” of the hot stove. The conversation is lively, analytical, and full of effectively wild banter.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Daniel Vogelbach’s Rapid Transition into Coaching

(00:46–12:04)

• Initial Reactions:
  • Ben brings up the Brewers hiring Daniel Vogelbach—a recently retired 33-year-old—as a hitting coach. Meg admits this makes her feel old because, “If a 33 year old can…be judged to have that expertise, and I’m older than them, it feels…I feel quite old.” (02:43)
• Changing Face of Coaching:
  • Coaches are skewing younger as teams prioritize player development at the major league level.
  • Ben: “Maybe there’s also more tolerance for coaches themselves developing as coaches at the big league level, even as they are developing players at the big league level.” (03:52)
  • The trend away from the "old timer" coach, toward a broader array of specialized staff.
• How Coaching Hire Decisions Are Made:
  • “It so often is just your connections and who you know, and that’s how you get the job.” (04:53)
  • Inside jobs and the significance of personal relationships are highlighted in Vogelbach's transition.
• Role of Former Players:
  • Being a recent player still matters—a big-league past opens doors, but successful coaching requires more than playing skill.
  • Meg: “Sometimes guys get hired and you think…just because you’re able to do it…doesn’t mean that you’re going to be a good instructor.” (07:19)
• Expanded Coaching Rosters:
  • The modern major league staff is sprawling. The Brewers, for example, have 3 hitting coaches (lead and assistants), multiple pitching staff, game prep specialists, etc.
  • Ben: “It takes a village.” (09:32)
• Organizational Investment:
  • Teams with payroll constraints (like the Brewers) invest in coaching—“pretty inexpensive value relative to the cost of a big leaguer.” (12:04)
• Personal Touches:
  • Meg suggests players-turned-coaches can be valuable conduits if they relate well to current players.

Notable Quote

“Maybe having a former player there whom other players are comfortable confiding in, that could help.”
—Ben (10:30)

---

2. The Tommy Pham "FamGraphs" Debate

(19:41–54:33)

• Trigger:
  • Ben references an Athletic article by Will Sammon and Eno Sarris on Tommy Pham's critiques of advanced stats and his “FamGraphs” model.
• Pham's Core Complaints:
  • Pham argues for adjusting stats for opponent quality, claiming hitters on poor teams face better pitchers more often.
• Debunking with Data:
  • Ben and Meg evaluate the logic and data behind Pham's claims:
    • Ben: “I’m sympathetic to the idea that advanced stats should or could account for opponent quality...some of them do. In fact, Baseball Reference does, OPS+ does, and DRC+ (Baseball Prospectus) does.” (24:49)
    • They cite BP’s data: No substantial correlation between team quality and opponent pitcher quality; divisional alignment is a bigger factor.
    • “Tommy Pham faced almost exactly average opposing pitcher quality according to BP—100.1.” (37:51)
• Further Statistical Nuance:
  • The hosts discuss whether more adjustment (beyond opponent quality) is warranted, including lineup context, lineup protection, weather, and environmental factors.
  • “Often the thing that they’re saying the numbers leave out is not actually left out.” (24:14)
  • Meg: “For the individual player level…that makes the most difference for guys who are looking at accumulating value in part time or platoon or complementary roles.” (42:37)
• On WAR and Memory:
  • They emphasize that while public stats like WAR shape popular perceptions (and thus sometimes pay arbitration), front offices use far more granular models.
  • Meg: “I do worry that we have sort of oversold [WAR's] precision. And so maybe we should focus more on incorporating more and more information so that it is more and more precise…” (47:09)

Notable Quotes

“A 100 WRC+ on the Pirates is not the same as a 100 WRC+ on the Yankees…”
—Tommy Pham (quoted by Ben, 33:21)

“The correlation between team winning percentage and opposing pitcher quality as measured by BP was literally 0.000.”
—Ben (51:01)

• Fact-Checking Pham’s Claims:
  • Ben follows up with data: Pham's assertions about facing far stronger competition in 2024 don’t match the numbers. His opponent quality was actually average.
  • “He doesn’t seem to have faced uniquely difficult pitching or even more difficult pitching than average.” (96:13)

---

3. Blue Jays Sign Kazuma Okamoto & Offseason Power Moves

(55:03–69:21)

• Blue Jays Land Okamoto:
  • Toronto signs Japan’s Kazuma Okamoto (4 years, $60M)—the “last prominent” NPB player to come over this winter.
  • This deal aligns with analyst expectations (compared to surprisingly low deals for some other NPB free agents).
• Scouting Okamoto:
  • Ben: “Given how great he has been...Okamoto even though this was more in line with the consensus, I think it’s a good deal.” (56:01)
  • Okamoto offers well-rounded offensive skills and can “at least play a passable third base.”
• Jays’ Roster Construction:
  • The Blue Jays’ offseason has been “impressive,” aggressive, and sets them up as a true powerhouse in the AL East.
  • “We should think of Toronto as a, a titan of the sport when it comes to resources. And fortunately, they seem to see themselves that way now.” (67:19)

Notable Quotes

“It’s been an impressive offseason for them, coming off of a pennant and nearly winning a World Series. And they have not sat on their hands, rested on their laurels.”
—Ben (63:10)

“We should think of them that way, you know, where they’re just like the big powerhouse…in recent years and now, and their financial resources, they’re bigger than those teams. They’ve shown more of a willingness to spend. They have those resources.”
—Ben (67:19)

---

4. State of the Free Agent Stove: Slow or Just "Mid"

(74:30–87:43)

• Market Check:
  • Six of the top 10 free agents are still unsigned, including Kyle Tucker, Alex Bregman, Framber Valdez, Cody Bellinger, Bo Bichette, and Ranger Suárez.
  • Ben and Meg discuss whether the hot stove is moving slowly.
  • Ben: “It’s not, it’s not unprecedented. It’s not like what’s going on here, you know…” (78:24)
• Why Does It Feel Slow?
  • Fewer headline trades compared to prior years.
  • “I think that a lot of this might just be explained by the midness of this class.” —Meg (81:31)
  • The lack of blockbuster moves, especially from the Yankees, intensifies local pressure.
• Notes on Late Signings:
  • Ben reminds that “guys who sign late in an offseason…tend to do worse relative to pre-offseason expectations…But that doesn’t necessarily mean teams get a bargain; it’s often because there’s less demand.” (90:49–92:36)

---

5. Team-by-Team Offseason Pressure

(87:43–93:51)

• Expectations and Frustrations:
  • Yankees: Under more pressure than usual, with all AL East rivals improving.
  • Cubs: “Not really flexing the financial muscle” and unlikely to re-sign Kyle Tucker, disappointing fans—“no one ever seemed to think that they would.”
  • The Orioles and Red Sox also have moves left to make; the Giants’ signings are described as “uninspiring…just, just boring.”
• World Series Loser Aggression:
  • Statistically, World Series losers tend to make more aggressive moves than winners to “get over the top.”

---

6. Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “It takes a village.” —Ben on the Brewers’ 16-person coaching roster (09:32)
• “I just feel like I was sold a bill of goods.” —Ben, joking about Vogelbach never stealing an MLB base (18:31)
• “Fam graphs…they did capitalize the G. I don’t know whether Pham himself specified that or…that’s much appreciated.” —Ben on the stylization of ‘FamGraphs’ (19:41)
• “You could throw harder. And it’s like, well, can I?” —Meg, on the shortcomings of elite players as coaches, referencing Zack Greinke (15:29)

---

7. Miscellaneous & Listener Follow-ups

(96:13–End)

• Ben delivers a fact check on Pham’s claims about his 2024 opponents: the numbers do not back up Pham’s narrative, and his performance was typical for his late-career stage.
• Listener Anthony writes in proposing that minor league contraction, reduced drafts, and COVID have all led to a thinner minor league free agent crop.
• Fun side note: discussion of Ozzie Albies’ 6,000-gallon fish tank and his adventures maintaining it (101:31).

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Vogelbach to Brewers, coaches getting younger: 00:46–12:04
• Tommy Pham/FamGraphs discussion: 19:41–54:33
• Blue Jays sign Kazuma Okamoto: 55:03–69:21
• Giants’ offseason / state of the stove: 70:14–78:24
• AL East arms race/Yankees inactivity: 80:44–87:19
• Discussion of late signings and team urgency: 87:43–93:51
• FamClaims fact-check & wrap-up: 96:13–End

---

Conclusion

This installment deftly combines the offbeat and the analytical, mixing big-picture baseball evolutions—like coaching hires and stat philosophy—with offseason market dynamics and front-office strategies. It’s a treasure for stats-minded listeners and anyone interested in how culture and process shape modern MLB.

Transcript

[A]

How are you? I'm okay. We got so much to do today. Breaking bones and breaking snails and those stats won't blast themselves. Effectively wild. Effectively wild. Effectively wild. Effectively wild. Effectively. Hello and welcome to episode 2423 of Effectively Wild, a baseball podcast from FanGraphs, presented by our Patreon supporters. I am Ben Lindbergh of the Ringer, joined by Meg Riley of fangraphs. Hello, Meg.

[B]

Hello.

[A]

How are you?

[B]

I'm fine.

[A]

Sounds so convincing. I'm glad that you're doing so well. So if you are thrown for a loop and rocked on your axis by former players becoming coaches shortly after they were playing, then you must have been flummoxed indeed by the news that the brewers had hired Daniel Vogelbach as a hitting coach. Was that. Is he really okay? Well, you hadn't heard, but I hope this doesn't ruin your day, cuz you were doing so well as we just stepped established and this might endanger that sense of security.

[B]

Daniel Vogelbach is 33.

[A]

He is. See, that's the thing. This doesn't make me feel old, exactly, because he is the same age that he was before. He didn't get older because he's a coach, but he is recently retired. He's 33. He turned 33 just recently in December. And of course, he was playing for the Blue Jays as recently as 2024. So it's sort of sudden. Although I saw a lot of reactions to this, like, wow, Daniel Vogelbach, he's a coach already. He actually was last year, which I didn't realize. I don't think it was. Yeah, he was working for the Pirates. He wasn't, I guess, a uniformed member of the major league staff. So maybe that's why it. It wasn't quite as salient and I may not have noticed. And also it was the Pirates he was with. So maybe, maybe, you know, if you're like a hit for the Pirates, you probably don't want to publicize that because your. Your assistants just didn't do enough, evidently. But he was a special assistant to the hitting department for the Pirates last year.

[B]

Okay.

[A]

Needed all the help they could get, I guess. But I think he was kind of roving in that role. He wasn't solely with the big league club.

[B]

I don't know if I'm doing a better job articulating why it. Because it. It does make me feel old. It puts me on tilt. And I think that part of the issue here is that you're like a coach is a position of some authority. Right. It's a position that is founded on an expectation and understanding of expertise. And so if a 33 year old can. Can be judged to have that expertise, and I'm not saying that they can't be, but if they are and then I'm older than them, it feels. I feel quite old. I feel quite a bit older. And so again I. It's fine, but is it, you know.

[A]

It doesn't make me feel older, but it does. It is jarring. It just because I have a mental image as someone who is still a player and of an age where they could be an active player.

[B]

Right.

[A]

And then they cross that divide into coaching.

[B]

Right.

[A]

And that feels almost more final than if you just retire. You could always unretire. I don't know if it's happened often or ever that someone has retired as a player, become a coach and then unretired. Sometimes you retire as a player, you're away from the game, you realize you don't like being away from the game, you go back to the game and you try to play again. But maybe it's also that just our mental model of coaches in general has to be changed because we do think of coaches as older and wizened and experienced. And I would guess that coaches on the whole have gotten younger. I don't have the data on that. There have always been guys who go straight from playing to coaching. I mean that's a time honored tradition in baseball and other sports too. But I would guess that on the whole, yeah, there's a little less of the just old coach who's been bouncing around forever because teams actually care about player development at the major league level now. And so the old idea of the coaches just being the manager's drinking buddies and they're old timers together and they're not really expected to do all that much coaching. It's more just about, I don't know, keeping people in line or whatever. That has kind of been phased out. And you are expected to actually coach and make people better. And maybe there's also more tolerance for coaches themselves developing as coaches at the big league level, even as they are developing players at the big league level. Because you might expect someone like Vogelbach, who's recently out of the game as a player, to go down to the lower levels and work his way up again. That is traditional too. I guess there are fewer lower levels now with the contraction of the minors. But you still don't have to skip straight to the big leagues, I guess. You know, he did have the one year apprenticeship where he was at multiple levels. I was just reading the story of how he got that Pirates gig. And it's funny, I don't know that baseball or professional sports is any different from any other industry, but it, it so often is just your connections and who you know, and that's how you get the job. That's just how it happened. Because when Vogelbach was with the Blue Jays in 2024, Matt Haig was an assistant coach with them then. And he suggested to Vogelbach that if he wanted to get into coaching, he should reach. And then Haig was named the Pirates hitting coach right after that. And then Vogelbach, who had already been in Pittsburgh as a player once, also just neatly transitions. You know, it's just like he had a buddy as someone who coached him and vouched for him, I guess, and that's kind of all it takes. Like you, we hear so much about, oh, so many rounds of interviews for managers and front office folks. And with coaches, sometimes it really is just, oh, yeah, that guy was a player and I played with him and I know him from back in the day. I'm sure it's more than that. You have to have a good reputation and you can't just be friends with someone. But, you know, other people will vouch for you and you probably have some aptitude toward coaching or you've expressed some interest in it, or you think about things in an analytical way or whatever it is. But still, even in this era where it is far from a prerequisite that you have to have played professionally to become a coach or been a big leaguer, it still helps quite a bit to have been a big leaguer.

[B]

Yeah, I think that, you know, I don't want to speak too broadly about it because I'm sure that there's, there's differences from org to org. You know, I don't want to say that every guy who gets a job after playing without having done a lot of coaching is like undeserving of it. Like playing is valuable experience to that. And some of these guys, you know, I'm thinking of some high profile examples maybe, but sometimes guys get hired and you think, oh, they're like, you know, Barry Bonds didn't last very long as a hitting coach. Just because you're able to do it or do it really well doesn't mean that you're going to be a good instructor. And even guys who, you know, maybe have a more mixed track record of big league production can still have valuable insight even if they weren't able to necessarily execute it themselves in the course of their careers. But it is funny when they kind of cycle back through like this, where it's like, how do you know Daniel Vogel back's going to be able to instruct well, but, you know, not say he can't. You know, I don't know.

[A]

Yeah. And he didn't skip straight from playing to coaching. He kind of had that apprenticeship where it was kind of a quasi coach and player development person at multiple levels. But I guess part of it also is that there are just so many coaches now because he's a hitting coach for the brewers, but he's not the hitting coach for the Brewers. He's a hitting coach for the Brewers. They hired another one at the same time, and there's another one, a returning one, who's the lead hitting coach. So they have three hitting coaches in the majors, the lead hitting coach, and then two other hitting coaches, and Vogelbach is one of them. So he can be kind of the rookie hitting coach. Because when I go to the brewers roster page for coaches, they have 16 people listed. Yeah. Including manager Pat Murphy, and that's including a couple of bullpen catchers. But you. So. And the bullpen coach. But, you know, you have, like, two major league game preparation specialists, and you have the pitching coach and a pitching coordinator and an assistant pitching coach, and you have a major league field coordinator, and you have an offense and strategy coordinator who's different from the hitting coaches. So it takes a village.

[B]

And.

[A]

And that makes sense, I think. I mean, you know, it's probably cost efficient. If you can actually coach and improve someone and help them in any kind of measurable, tangible way, then it probably makes sense to pay for another coach. And some coaches. I wonder whether former MLB players command higher salaries as coaches just. Yeah, just because some of them aren't doing it for the money. They just kind of want to stay in the game or they want to help the next generation of players. But also, if they made a lot of money, then it's kind of a different proposition for them than for someone who never had a big league salary. So I wonder whether it takes more to sign a coach like that to sort of persuade them to go along with the grind and everything. Maybe not. I don't know if you have enough desire to coach. Maybe. Yeah, it's not really the salary that's doing it for you. If that were the case, then maybe we would see X players phased out. Because you could get cheaper coaches.

[B]

Sure.

[A]

But I guess that's a way that you could Sort of break someone in. And if you have three hitting coaches, maybe it's even more beneficial to have someone like Vogelbach who's the same age as a lot of the players and played with or against some of them, and they know who he is and he could kind of be that conduit almost. You know, I guess it's odd because, like, you wouldn't want all the players to go to Vogelbach because he's the guy they know and ignore the lead hitting coach. And there might be like, you know, interpersonal issues to sort out there, but as sort of like the, the friendly face of the hitting coach triumvirate, then maybe having a former player there whom other players are comfortable confiding in, that could, that could help. I guess you are still limited to. I think it's seven uniformed coaches who are like in the dugout during games, not including the manager. So even if they're, you know, 14 or 16 people listed, they're not all on the field, they're not all there. But they can play some parts pre and post game and be around. And it makes sense. I think, you know, probably teams just underutilized coaches for much of major league history and it wasn't as big a business and the budgets and the payrolls weren't as big and maybe they just like, couldn't help as much. They didn't have as many tools at their disposal and it was all just based on experience and received wisdom as opposed to technology and data that you could help people apply. Anyway, DANIEL Vogelbach BREWERS HITTING COACH we can all just get used to that idea.

[B]

Yeah, well, and one final thought on this. It's not surprising to me, and I think we've maybe talked about this a bit in the past, that, you know, a team like the brewers, where maybe you are meaningfully payroll constrained, would find value in investing in additional coaching resources so that you can really try to maximize the development of your players at the minor league and big league level. Because sure, maybe I don't know what Daniel Vogelbach is making this year. Maybe, though Daniel Vogelbach commands, I don't know, number, whatever that number is, even if there is a premium because he has big league experience, it's going to be less than even like one year of a reliever on the free agent market. So if you, if you are able to say with any amount of certainty that that person is providing value and that the role is providing value to the club, it seems like pretty inexpensive value relative to the cost of a big leaguer. So it's not surprising to me that the brewers would be in on that sort of thing.

[A]

It would be tough to stat blast this. But I wonder whether former players tend to become coaches, if they become coaches for teams they played for, which I think is, you know, not always the case, but often. Yeah, but. But I wonder whether they, in addition to becoming coaches more often for teams they played for, they become coaches more often for teams they played well for. Because Daniel Vogelbach, he had a short stint in Pittsburgh, but he hit quite well there.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And he hit pretty decently in Milwaukee as well. Whereas with the Blue Jays, for instance, Vbach had a 59 career OPS plus, you know, in 84 point appearances. But he like got designated for assignment or, you know, that was the end of his career. So even though that was the most recent place he played, it was not the first place he coached or even the second place he coached. And I wonder whether that's a coincidence just because, you know, I guess if a team kind of cuts you, you maybe they're hard feelings. Even if he didn't really play well enough to stay or just. You don't really impress people. He had two separate stints with Toronto, once very briefly in 2020. But like, if you don't hit for that team, it's not as if your career numbers are any different, but if the decision makers in charge there didn't see you hit and like, you, you know, are they going to hire you to be a hitting coach if, if you really needed a hitting coach when you were there. Yeah. That. You know, successful hitting coaches are always good hitters.

[B]

In fact, Barry Bonds example.

[A]

Right. Often just the opposite. So, so yeah. Was Bonds bad or was he. He just, he wasn't long tenured.

[B]

He was long tenured. Yeah. I am taking the, the, the brevity of his stay.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

As an indication that he was not able to, to sort of translate his skill. But I, I don't know. I haven't seen reporting on that one way or another. It's an assumption that I'm making. But I could see. And again, this is speculation on my part, but. And we've maybe talked about this on the POD before even. It's like if you're that sort of exceptional at something. And I don't mean to suggest that Barry Bonds was only a good hitter because of like, natural ability. Like, he worked very hard and, and ba.

[A]

Ba.

[B]

B. I know.

[A]

Famously not, but.

[B]

Right. Like, you know, yeah, but, but the distinction I'm trying to draw is that like, sometimes we assume that There is just like this like, gift from God kind of aspect to guys who are that preternaturally gifted, hence the, you know, word sort of preternatural. But, you know, I can imagine that if you are, are that skilled, if you are that much better at doing something, then not only your average hitter, but then the, the vast majority of hitters that being able to articulate in a useful way to someone who is like, replacement level what they ought to do to be a viable big league hitter, that there, there would be something just maybe lost in translation there, right? It's like the story about the, the guy who asked Zach Grinke to watch his bullpen. And at the end he's like, what can I do better? And he's like, you could throw harder. And it's like, well, can I? You know? And well, now he may be good because that we train for velo, but it's like, well, yeah, yeah, okay, but like, what else, what else do you have for me? And I wonder if some of the, the very best guys can actually struggle to break through and say what. What tweaks need to be made, what change in stance they need to. To do, because there is something about it that is intuitive to them. They obviously marry that sort of natural skill and maybe intuition for how their body ought to move and what have you with a lot of work and reps and, and instruction of their own. But I just wonder if you and like, I don't know, just like, be really good. Have you considered being better than you? Is that helpful? Is that a helpful piece of me to be like, hey, what if you hit better than. Than you do? So, yeah. Thanks, Barry.

[A]

Well, I wish him well in this next phase career. Surprised he didn't go to the nationals. He'd fit right in there. Age W.

[B]

Well. But to answer your. Your question, I'm sure that how you performed has something to do with it, but I also. It doesn't surprise me when those guys end up working for teams they know because it's like part of, part of being a good teacher, I think, is like having a nice way about you, right? Like being able to be socially adept and know how to communicate with different kinds of guys and hopefully different skill levels. And you know, what better way to have a sense of that in someone than to have had like a big league season with them and to observe them in a clubhouse and know what kind of teammate they are and like, is this guy able to talk to different demographics of players and sort of get along well and there's more to being a good teacher than, like, getting along with people. Right. There are times where you have to, like, be stern and all sorts of stuff, but I would imagine, like, that can be sort of invaluable vetting to be like, yeah, we. We had Daniel for a year and what a time we had with him. It was great.

[A]

The only thing that I'm upset about is that this further cements that he will never steal a base in the big leagues. And I just feel like I was lied to.

[B]

But what if he ends up being. What if the.

[A]

What.

[B]

What if his trajectory takes him to being a base coach and then he can. He can tell other people to say, deal. Would that be satisfying to you?

[A]

Would that become the base running base stealing coach while he's at it? Yeah.

[B]

What if he's just like, hyper aggressive sends all the time and they're like, daniel, you shouldn't be doing that? And he's like, but that guy's so much faster than I was. Surely he can steal a base.

[A]

I just feel like I was sold a bill of goods. It's still.

[B]

You were sold a bill of goods.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

You should be mad about that. Yeah.

[A]

Class action suit that, that promo from when the rules change. It's still on the MLB YouTube channel and the title is Daniel Vogelbach stealing a base. It's possible with the new bigger bases. And I guess the fact that he didn't do it does not disprove that it was possible. It's still, it was possible he just didn't do it. But I'm upset that he didn't do it because I really think he could have and maybe if. If he were still playing. Just seeing all the slowish guys.

[B]

Right.

[A]

Our prolific base dealers now, you know, just seeing what Josh Naylor did and Juan Soto and all the rest, I just. I absolutely feel like he could have stolen a base and he wouldn't have even had to get caught trying that many times to pull it off. So that's one disappointment for me. But. Oh, well. All right. While we are talking about experienced players, should we discuss fam graphs? You knew I was going to bring up fam graphs. So for. For anyone who didn't see, there's an article on Monday at the Athletic by Will Salmon and, you know, Saris, and it's about Tommy Fam's tips for improving advanced stats and his dream model. He has come up with a name and it is Fam graphs. And he says in the article, he's quoted as saying it's pretty Self explanatory of the name's origin and I guess it is. I do appreciate, I'm sure you appreciate that they camel cased or Pascal cased fam graphs. So they did capitalize the G. I don't know whether Pham himself specified that or you know, and will or athletic copy editors did, but that's much appreciated. Anyway, he has some suggestions. He is finding some faults in some advanced stats and that's not unusual for a player or former player to have some notes for the stat heads, particularly when they're unemployed. Well, I guess that's true too. But yes, he is a free agent. He is looking for work and perhaps that's part of the grievance that he has here. The gripes. Although as we know from past discussions, Tommy Fam, no shortage of gripes, grievances and altercations. But this time he has more of a point than he has in, in past times that we've talked about. Tommy Pham. I'm receptive to his thoughts here. I would say that usually when a player, or especially a former player has some complaint about a stat or some critique for sabermetrics or something, often the thing that they're saying the numbers leave out is not actually left out. They'll just be like they don't account for this or that. And then I read it, I'm like, yeah, but it does though. But. And so sometimes they're just under informed, I would say, about what the stat actually does. I guess there's an element of, of that here, depending on which stat you're talking about.

[B]

Yeah, but I think in general a better, a more accurate description of some of the gaps than we often see.

[A]

Yes, I think so. Yeah. This was more on point than usual. And I think especially when it's a former player who's been out of the game for a while, they're less likely to be really clued in to the modern states of, of advanced analytics. And so, you know, players who are playing, they are steeped in this stuff and they tend to have a better sense of it than a talking head who's, you know, on some studio show and has been out of the game for a while and might not have kept up with things. But yeah, it's, it's often either kind of ill informed, like they want it to include something that's already included or it's just sort of a niggling point. It's, it's kind of okay, yeah, maybe there's something to that, but it's probably not a Big deal. And I guess the Fam complaint falls into that category kind of. Or sometimes I just completely disagree with the idea that a stat should include the thing that the player says it should include. Or it's just like impossible because how could you possibly measure something, you know? But anyway, the main complaint here that the article led with is about adjusting for opponent quality and specifically the quality of opposing pitchers. So I'll just quote from the piece here. At the heart of one matter for Fam is the chasm between playing for a winning or losing team. Pham, who has been on both sides of that equation, says that playing for a powerhouse means a chance to feast on lesser pitchers when your team is leading comfortably. Alternatively, playing for a non contender sometimes means facing high leverage relievers more often as superior opponents close out another victory. And then Fam is quoted as saying, it was just so many guys like that where I'm like, damn. Rather than facing the mop up guy where you know you can tack on another hit or walk, whatever it is, you're losing so many at bats or plate appearances. But yeah, so I think you should.

[B]

Write him a letter and be like, I don't want to address any of your saber metric concerns. I'm more concerned about the at bat versus played appearance discrepancy throughout.

[A]

Yes.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

So he's saying that the quality of your team dictates the quality of pitchers you face and that if you're playing for a team that's really good, you're going to be blowing out your opponents and you're just going to be facing a lot of low leverage arms. Whereas if you're playing for a non contender, then you're going to be facing better pitchers because the opponent is going to be putting in their high leverage guys to close out a victory. Now, on the surface, I don't know that that completely holds water.

[B]

Right. Because if you're, if you're bad team and you're facing a good team and you're losing, you're going to see their lower leverage arms, you're not going to see their higher leverage arms. Why would they put their higher leverage arms in against that bad team?

[A]

Exactly.

[B]

If they're winning, that doesn't make sen.

[A]

It should work both ways. So if you're. Yeah, if you're a powerhouse, then you're feasting on lower pitchers because you're, you're lower leverage pitchers because you're blowing out your opponent. But if you're the bad team, then you're the one being blown out and you're still going to face a lot of low leverage pitchers. So I don't know that that is completely consistent. And maybe that's kind of, you know, an example of negativity bias. Right. It's like when, when something good happens to you or something bad happens to you, you're more likely to remember the bad thing and dwell on that. And, and there's probably an evolutionary advantage to that because you want to stay away from the thing that was life threatening and the thing that was pleasant. Well, if you forget about that, that's okay. It's not necessarily going to get you killed or something. So. So maybe, yeah, he's remembering the moments where, you know, he was downed, the Pirates were losing, and, and the other team is bringing in their closer to shut them down or something. But I'm sympathetic to the idea that advanced stats should or could account for opponent quality. We've, we've talked about this plenty of times and, and some of them do. In fact, Baseball Reference does, OPS plus does, and DRC plus Baseball Prospectus's metric does. It's not displayed publicly anyway, anywhere. I don't think, I don't think you can easily look up the quality of opponents that someone faced. Baseball Prospectus used to display that, but doesn't anymore. Yeah. So I do wish you could look that up, but it is baked in under the hood. It is not for wrc. And we've talked about the merits of that argument. I think on balance, if I could snap my fingers and make WRC account for opponent quality, I guess I would, I, I probably would prefer it that way, but it's not a big deal. And there are arguments against it too. Just, you know, you're getting more and more abstract and maybe you just want to know the value of someone's production without factoring in opponent quality. We are factoring in like league quality and ballpark. And so it's always a matter of where do you draw the line right before it gets, you know, kind of theoretical in a sense, or it's so adjusted that people start thinking it's some sort of imaginary number as opposed to what actually happened, which is a critique that gets leveled against Baseball Prospectus stat sometimes. So it's kind of a balance. I don't consider it a big drawback of the stat or anything, but I think it might be worth accounting for. I don't know where you stand on it.

[B]

I tend to think two things. One, I think that in general, this just sort of balances itself out over the course of an entire season. Season, Right. Where sure, we're not accounting for opponent quality per se. There are questions about like, well, opponent quality when like average opponent quality. Because it's not like guys performance is the same over the course of an entire season. So there's that part of it. Like again, how abstract do you want to get? But I think in general, like these things sort of balance out to something resembling average. I also. Let me see if I can articulate the, the sort of broader philosophical issue I maybe draw from this. He's not wrong to say that like if you, if you're a hitter and you happen to just by luck of the draw get a bunch of not good or lower leverage, so maybe we'll call them less good opponents because they're all big leaguers. Right. Maybe not all of them for the entire season, but like in general you're facing like big league caliber pitching.

[A]

Sure. By definition, if you're in the big leagues.

[B]

Yeah, right. But like maybe you just by luck of the draw are hitting on days where your team is up big and you're seeing more lower leverage relievers, you're seeing more fifth starters, you're seeing, you know, just like a, a less good version of the majors than other clubs are. You play in a division with poor competition across the board. Right. We talk about this within the context of the Centrals a good bit and you kind of feast on that less good pitching. Whereas a bad team and a good division, maybe you get beat up on by better pitching even if you're able to sort of square the circle that Tommy Pham is talking about, where you're probably actually seeing lower leverage arms because you're a bad team and you're maybe getting blown out. But you know, the average opponent quality is just better on a better team than it is on a less good team. Well, okay, you're right that, that those hitters are getting credit, quote unquote, for performance against less good arms. But it. Do you really want to stand on the notion that like you aren't able to beat up on better arms and so you should get credit for that. Right. Like there's just sort of a like philosophy of offensive crediting and value that I don't know that I quite can square there. So I think that in general these things don't really end up making that huge of a difference. Right. The thing that's probably going to make the bigger difference is like what is your innate skill level as a hitter? But even if it did, I'm like, well, I don't know Be a better hitter then like. And, and I'm sounding a little sassy toward Tommy Fam, and I, I don't mean to because I think that like having, having a very granular understanding of the, the real shape of a hitter's production is valuable. I think the reassurance that I could maybe offer big league hitters is like teams aren't looking at our version of WAR to decide what.

[A]

Right.

[B]

What guys to sign. Right. Like it might be an input into their, their system, I guess, but like they have their own models and those models have many more inputs and those inputs are more granular than what is necessarily going into war. Now I am sympathetic to the idea and, and here, you know, I, I get entirely where the frustration can come from. WAR does shape popular perception of the quality of players. And more simplistic inputs like the version of WAR that is used for say the arbitration bonus pool that is used in making arbitration cases. Those inputs do matter, especially in the early parts of a player's career in terms of how much they're paid at a time when like getting paid more means a lot more to you as a player because you've been making minor league money or the league minimum. So I totally understand when players are like, what the heck with this? You know, like I'm out here producing and I'm trying to get credit for that so that I can win an arbitration case so that I can inform the public's perception of me, which can have knock on effects for your ability to sign endorsement deals and all sorts of stuff. So I'm not saying it doesn't matter. That would be a weird claim to make about the site that I spent so much time working for. But I do think that when it comes to the way that teams are sort of both evaluating and valuing players, that the models are much more sophisticated. Now. Yes, having said all of that, I do think that it is incumbent upon players, and particularly their representation to be able to make compelling cases of value that maybe tell a more nuanced story of the player's production than just simple public facing metrics would. And so having sophistication around that stuff is I think valuable and really important to you. Getting paid what you're worth. Worse. So I'm going to let you talk and then I have more say about that.

[A]

Yeah, Fam did say that he's talked about this with his agency when he was looking for a job before the 2025 season to try to dig up some stats. There is a quote here from an unnamed NL executive who corroborates some of what Fam says and says in the example of worse teams facing more higher leverage pitchers. He's right. But even over a full season, we're not talking about a ton of plate appearances. Thank you. Plate appearances. So the impact is probably a few points here and there. Still, though I would guess 90% or more of the models that teams use incorporate all these factors, even if the public does not get the view. So that's what you were saying. Now, his actual contention here. So fam says a 100 WRC plus on the Pirates is not the same as a 100 WRC plus on the Yankees or the Dodgers, the best offenses in baseball. I don't know that that's true, broadly speaking. So the article does note that maybe the Pirates are a perfect storm for facing high leverage opposing pitchers because they did have good pitching and they did have a terrible lineup and they played in a park that somewhat suppresses offense. And so maybe you play lower scoring games and closer games potentially because your pitching is holding the other guys down and, and your bats are bad. So sure. So maybe. And as they note the authors, according to fan graphs, the Pirates hitters had the highest average leverage index of any team in 2025, 1.05, where average is 1. Again, there's not that much spread around the average, but the Pirates were tops. So that's sort of supports what he's saying. On the other hand, I did get some data from Baseball Prospectus because they do have it behind the scenes and it's an input into DRC deserve runs created. And so Robert Au, who's the director of operations at BP, sent me a spreadsheet with the opposing DRA minus for every hitter in 2025. And then he also aggregated it by team. So DRA minus is the BP equivalent of say FIP minus or ERA minus. It's the same idea. It's, it's just a, an index stat for pitchers. Lower is better. And so this just gives the collective DRA minus of every hitter and every team. So if you look up by team in 2025, the Pirates faced dead average opposing pitching. So the average, for whatever reason here, after he did the aggregation that, that made the average 100.5 instead of 100, but the pirates were at 100.3. They actually were just almost exactly average. I guess they, they faced the 10th hardest opposing pitching. There's pretty much nothing there. And if you look for any kind of correlation between how good a team is and the quality of Opposing pitching, there isn't one. So vastly, I think overriding whatever might be true based on like the quality of the team or the quality of the offense or any of that stuff, is just like what division you're in and which teams you're playing more often. Because as you were just saying, you're, you know, in a weaker division, then you're going to be facing weaker pitching staffs. So the hardest pitching was faced by the Tampa Bay Rays batters last year, which makes sense, right, because they're in the AL east and a lot of AL east teams were pretty good. And so they're facing the Yankees and the Red Sox and the Blue Jays all the time. And so. And again, the numbers, there's not much of a spread here really, because it's a long season and it evens out and because DRA and drc, like these things are kind of heavily regressed and so there's not that much of a difference. But. But the raise, you know, 100 is an average DRA minus, or maybe it's 100.5. Here the rays were at 98.7 and that was the hardest pitching anyone faced. And the Yankees were at 99.2. They were next. And on the easy end, it was AL Central teams. It was the Tigers at 102.1. They faced the easiest opposing pitching, followed by the Royals. And the White Sox were up there too. So to the extent that there is any difference here, it really seems to be dictated much more by the opposing teams you're facing and the division you're in than the particulars of how good your team is or your offense or any of that stuff. So it actually appears that the Pirates were basically smack dab in the middle. And Robert also sent me this by battery, so, you know, I could look up not just the Pirates, but Pham himself. Yeah, and it turns out that Tommy Pham faced almost exactly average opposing pitcher quality according to BP, 100.1. That's as close as you can get. Just about. It's a tenth of a runoff actually. O' Neill Cruz, fellow pirate, was 100 bang on. So yeah, there does not appear to be anything more to this, at least last season, specifically for the Pirates. The hardest pitching according to BP was faced by former Ray and now current Pirate Jake Mangum. So he was at 97.3 opposing DRA minus and the easiest opposing pitching. I just said the, the Tigers on the whole face the easiest opposing pitching and the easiest for an individual better was a Tiger, Kerry Carpenter at 104.3. So.

[B]

Well, sure, because he was always shielded from well outside of his platoon split. But, but this is the thing, right? It's like he shouldn't. He, he did well when he was shielded. Right.

[A]

Like that counts.

[B]

You know, I'm not trying to.

[A]

Yeah. I'm not sure if this would count for platoon advantage or not. This might just be quality of pitcher regardless of platoon. I'm not, not positive, but I guess.

[B]

Would be baked in there a little bit. Right. If you're only ever facing opposite handed. My point is like, he, you know, his splits are so dramatic that they deploy him strategically as well. They should. Like he, he had a, last year he had a 122 WRC plus against right handed pitching and a 71 against left handed pitching. Right. Like he's, they are, they are quite thoughtful in the way that they deploy him. And that works out great because then he, he hits. You know, he, it's like a legitimate skill that he's demonstrating. It's just that they are thoughtful in how they deploy him. So, you know, I just, yeah, it's, it's in there a little bit. Right.

[A]

Yeah. So I'm sympathetic to the overall argument that stats could account for opposing player difficulty, and some of them do, and I, I might even prefer that they do, but it doesn't make that much of a difference. And also for fam specifically, it doesn't seem to have made any difference last year if you did adjust and baseball Prospectus does adjust, and there would be next to no adjustment for him. He also goes on to say that sets should consider the quality of lineup. So if a pitcher has to work through a strong lineup, then that might tire them out. But also the way that he's looking at it from a batter's perspective, he's saying that if a pitcher is working through a strong lineup, then having to grind out those plate appearances against those guys then makes it easier for the next batter. So he's basically saying that say Jose Ramirez, who is not in a strong lineup but is good. Like that's even more, more impressive because the pitchers are having an easier time with the rest of the lineup. And so, yeah, he's suggesting like they'd be worn down and they'd be easy prey, basically, if you're in a strong lineup, which I don't know. I mean, maybe I, I, that also falls into the category of could be. But it, it's gonna be like on the margins. I'm almost positive because it's not even like, you know, we don't have a AL and NL where one has DHS and one has pitcher hitters where you get that breather. You know, it's still like real hitters for the most part, top to bottom. And whenever someone says like, like lineup factors, it's always just on the margins. Like the idea that, oh, I have a bunch of good on base guys on this team and so it would be more beneficial to add a power guy who could kind of cash in those runs or if you have a bunch of power guys, then it would be better to get an on base guy to go with them to sort of set them up. And that's true, but it's also like it's such a small factor that it really only matters at the extremes. And generally you just want the better hitter and the shape of that production is almost irrelevant. Not completely, but you need like a, you know, advanced simulator over the course of seasons to be able to detect the difference.

[B]

I, okay, let me, let me try to, to put this thought out there in a way that doesn't sound like I'm nagging Tommy Pim, because I don't. I think that the places where this stuff makes the most difference to the player is when that player is more in the complementary role player bucket than the like true everyday starter bucket. Because you're right, it would be wrong to say that this stuff doesn't make any difference at all because it, it absolutely does. And you know, teams are to some extent in the business of like stacking marginal bits of value to something bigger. So you know, teams, teams care about that. They like to be able to take the big swing and pencil in like you know, eight war next to Ohtani's name. But these marginal differences can make a difference when they accumulate over the course of a season. Right. We spend a whole, got a whole industry around this stuff. Right. But for at the individual player level, I think that that makes the most difference for the guys who are themselves sort of looking at accumulating value in part time or platoon or complementary roles. And so, you know, we might dismiss half a win out of hand, but to, to them that might be a big, big difference, right? In the way that they are perceived, in the way that their roster ability is perceived. Tommy Pham himself has sort of been different versions of this guy over the course of his career. There have been times where he has been an obvious everyday guy. There have been times where he has been more complimentary sort of role player guy. And so I want to be sympathetic to how personal this stuff can Feel when you are a good season for you is maybe like a two win season as opposed to like a five win season or a ten win season. Right. Where you're, you're gonna sweat the small stuff more when you're on the margins of a big league roster versus versus sort of firmly entrenched. And that sounds like I'm being rude and I don't mean it to, but I can hear myself. So I get how it does. And I do think that there's part of what we're always sort of pushing and pulling against in this conversation is like, what do we think the value of the metric is? What is the purpose of the metric? Right. And I want war, our version and every other version to be thoughtful and rigorous. And I want it to have a coherent theory of value in baseball. Right. I don't think that we should be indifferent to that stuff. I do worry about us and we've talked about this a lot on the POD in the last couple of years, sort of overselling the precision of WAR as an industry. Now, you and me, we're perfect. But like, I do worry that we have sort of oversold its precision. And so maybe we should be focused more on incorporating more and more information so that it is more and more precise and we sort of approach something closer to the version of WAR that fans think we have, even if we don't. But also I think there's value in the simplicity of something like a WAR that doesn't necessarily stuff more and more into it because I think it's easier for fans to understand. And if what you're doing is trying to like, communicate what's valuable in thoughtful but sort of generally broad strokes to the public side, well, maybe that's good enough. But also, if you're a player and you're looking at your fangrass page every day and you're like, well, no, surely I'm better than that. This. And you're not accounting for the numerous ways that I add value. I would, I would guess that's very frustrating. So I want to have a, like a sort of generous spirit about the whole thing. And like, yeah, camel casing is good. And I do think that there's a lot that sort of can affect the way that a player's offensive production ends up playing that we could be more precise about. I think the weather stuff is a really interesting wrinkle that could lend greater precision to our park factors. As we think through how do we really think about the way that these parks play? And are we debiting or crediting guys in the way that we should. The thing that we have talked about internally and I've definitely mentioned before, it's like our positional adjustments are definitely due for some sort of overhaul here. Overhaul is maybe too strong, but like, you know, I, I'm sympathetic to the idea that we are, we are debiting DHS and first baseman maybe more than we ought to. That that positional adjustment is overly harsh. But I think a lot of this stuff sort of washes out over the course of an entire season. And again, that's why a guy, why guys who. And Tommy Pham, you know, fam graphs how, how fun a thing. He's not the first person to have some notes. And I think you're right that like his, his handle on this is pretty good and certainly better than many of the former players who groused about advanced metrics. But yeah, I think that when you're like, when you hear someone say, well, yeah, over the course of full season, this, this all balances out. If you're a guy who's like the weak side of a platoon, you might be like, well, I don't have a full season.

[A]

Right. Yes.

[B]

You know, this matters. It matters more to me.

[A]

Yeah. Or if you pinch it a lot also, I guess Carrie Carpenter does that too. That's added difficulty. So that should be accounted for also. It's a separate effect, you know. Yeah.

[B]

And. And so I'm, I find that some of the, the original sins of sabermetrics is like the overconfidence and an indifference to how it impacts real people in terms of like guys keeping or losing jobs. And some, some players, they're like, this is great. Finally people understand how valuable I've been. You know, so it can cut both ways. But I want to be mindful of the, the fact that this is like something that impacts real people and I don't want to have an indifference to how that can wash over them. But you know, like Carrie Carpenter's may be a good example of this stuff. Like Carrie carpenter in, in 87 games in 2024 in less than 300 plate appearances. Plate appearances, not at bats. He was a 158 WRC plus hitter. Right. He was a two and a half win player. He was pressed into greater service in 2025 and he was a 115 WRC plus hitter. Now that's still a valuable hitter. Right. That's 15% better than league average. He was a one and a half win player. But when he had to do a Little bit more, you know, maybe we understood why he was shielded to some degree. So it's, it's. And you know, Tommy Pham's a grown ass man and, and I can say stuff about his performance and he, he doesn't need to be coddled, but I don't want to be disrespectful either. You know what I mean? Am I, yeah, sure. Making any kind of sense here? Like they're doing a really hard thing and, and they don't all do it equally well, but they are doing it better than I could and they're doing it generally better than the, than a replacement level player. So.

[A]

Yeah, and they're plenty of times that a player will point out something from their own experience that could be instructive to a stat head, even a stat head who understands the game well in a abstract, less personal way. So. Yeah, and he seems to have thought a lot about this and I'd much rather have him talking about this and thinking about this than some other times that have caused us to discuss Tommy Fam on this podcast.

[B]

But you know, he's been mindful about it. He's like thinking through even if I have nits to pick and even if I might think that his sort of, on balance, he is putting in some parts of this conversation and it's like a long interview. And again, parts of it are I think, more sort of meaningful than others. I think he might be putting the emphasis on the wrong syllable at certain points, as it were, but he's clearly a thoughtful guy as it pertains to this stuff.

[A]

I'll put the data that Robert sent me online if anyone wants to peruse it. And yeah, to be clear, last year at the team level, the correlation between team winning percentage and opposer opposing pitcher equality as measured by PP was literally 0.000. So there was no correlation there. So you do have to kind of take it to its logical conclusion. I guess if you want to do this, then you can't just account for how good your team was or how close their games were, but also who you played and how good those teams were. And maybe you won't like that answer. Of course, you can also do these calculations for opposing battery quality for pitchers, which I didn't ask Robert to send me, but that's there and that's factored into DRA minus and whatever else. And the other thing that you alluded to, the weather, that was another component of this piece that Fam was talking about how statcast should factor in more environmental Factors. He was citing one specific ball that carried because of the wind. And so he then gets docked because of that. He thinks unfairly. He says it's a really flawed system, but it's getting factored into our value. I guess I would quibble with. I mean, really flawed. Yeah, yeah. Compared to what we do. I guess compared to.

[B]

We do have park factors and, like.

[A]

Right. Compared to perfect knowledge of everything. Yes, it's. It's flawed. Compared to everything that's gone before, I think it's way better. And this is another kind of. On the margins. And yes, individual plays, there might be something missed. And, you know, he's talking about, like, the sun. Sometimes the sun gets in your eyes and. And the wind and, you know, lights and catwalks and all these things. I don't think anyone's opposed to the idea of. Of accounting for all these things. I think. I mean, Tom Tango, who works on that stuff, has acknowledged that that's, like, on their roadmap, or they'd like to, but it's just. It's difficult. And there is a company called Weather Applied Metrics, and you've probably seen on broadcasts or their, you know, adjustments for home runs and the wind effect and what the carry was. And so in theory, you could have that applied to every batted ball and every fly ball. It's difficult because the wind sometimes changes mid play, and so you'd have to account for it not just with a single point measurement, but just like every instance, what was the wind at that second and the direction and the light. And, you know, it's kind of computationally difficult to account for all of that. And maybe the data doesn't even exist or isn't gathered that way. But ultimately, I'm sure some days, and maybe not even in the distant future, there will be some more complete accounting of these things. And there have been flaws with, like, wall balls, which I. I think is being addressed now. You know, there was like, if you are making a play going back on a ball that's accounted for, but if it's near a wall, there's kind of like a wall adjustment, but it might not actually take into effect the height and the difficulty. And so, you know, bit by bit, these things get incrementally better. He's not wrong about any of those things. And I don't know if anyone would disagree. I guess I would maybe differ on just the magnitude. Right. Of. Of the problem. But I get why, you know, you remember a specific batted ball where the ball took off on you, and maybe stat Cast doesn't account for that. And you're thinking, oh, unfair.

[B]

I was wrong. The. The issue was more that Carrie Carpenter was just less good versus righties. He did face lefties more. 63 plate appearances versus 32. But also he just faced righties more. And instead of having, yeah, a one.

[A]

He was good against them. But not otherworldly, not transcendent.

[B]

Not a 175 WRC plus hitter. A 122 WRC plus hitter. So sorry, I don't know.

[A]

Okay. Yeah. Well, we have one more signing to discuss.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

The Blue Jays staying busy, making moves. They have signed Kazumo Okamoto, who is, I guess the last Japanese player to come over. The last prominent one at least. And his posting deadline just passed. The Blue Jays signed him. It's a four year $60 million deal, no opt outs, unlike others. And it's a $5 million signing bonus and then a $7 million salary for him this year year and then 16 million in each of the subsequent three years. So that's actually pretty simple as these things go. So we can kind of close the book now, I guess, on the NPB posting period. And we talked a lot about the deals that Murakami and Imai got and how far short of expectations they fell. Not the case really with Okamoto, this was more in line with the predictions for him.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

I will mention that Imai's teammates on the Cebu Lions, Kona Takahashi, another pitcher. He opted not to sign with an MLP team. He went through the whole 45 day posting window. He had offers reportedly from a few major league clubs, but evidently they weren't to his liking. And so he's saying, psych. I am going back to npp. This is not the first time this has happened, but I guess you could throw that in as another data point for oh, the Japanese players as a whole collectively underperformed expectations for them this offseason. But Takahashi was a more marginal case. You know, he's also fairly young, but just in terms of the performance in the stuff was. Was not quite of the caliber of Imai. And his numbers don't compare. And the strikeout rate is. Is nowhere near. So that's not shocking that teams didn't bite or weren't enthused about him. As for Okamoto, he's a really good player and I like this signing. I guess I've kind of been bullish on, on all of these NPB players, especially the ones who signed for a lot less than they were predicted to. But Okamoto even though this was more in line with the consensus, I think it's a good deal. I think just given how great he has been. Yeah, he's like going back to 2019. I think Eric mentioned this in his blog post about the signing, but only Murakami has more home runs in NPB over that period than Okamoto. And it's not a big gap power wise. And that's the big calling card of Murakami for Okamoto. He has power, but it's, it's less light tower power. It's. It's more, you know, hitting 30 something bombs or topping out at 41 in NPB and probably won't be that impressive in MLB. But you know, he's not going to get the bat knocked out of his hands or anything. But he is just a really well rounded hitter. And so all the, the faults that people found in Murakami's offensive profile don't really apply to Okamoto because if anything they've had opposite trajectories really because Murakami has gotten more and more. More strikeout prone in recent seasons. And Okamoto has actually cut down on his strikeouts. He struck out 11.3% of his plate appearances last season and walked the same number. So he actually had a. A210 WRC plus in NPB. And Murakami was, was in the same range but just like a much more problematic profile in terms of the projections for how that will translate. At least that seems to be the consensus view. So it's, it's kind of, it's. It's interesting cuz they have like similar production like couldn't, couldn't be any more similar. Okamoto was a 210 WRC plus. Murakami was 211. They both had partial seasons because of injuries, but there are just fewer flaws in Okamoto's game. And also he can at least play a passable third base, which that makes a big difference too. He is, he is older than Murami, but he's not old. He's 29.

[B]

He's 29. Yeah. I mean I think that you can, you can wonder like from a positioning perspective like what is the optimal place to deploy him. And obviously, you know, it's not like you can slide him over to first if you decide he can't play third base. That spot's occupied in Toronto for quite a while. But I also, also think that my, my understanding from everyone's like, you know, time watching his defense is that he's not unplayable in the field, and the bat is. Is stout. I think that we, you know, we were pleasantly surprised by the sort of advances that the Blue Jays lineup made as a whole in terms of contact quality and strikeout rate in 2025 relative to 2024. But I think that people reasonably wondered, how sticky are those gains going to be? And so bringing in a guy who is a good power hitter and also has sort of sustained his own contact gains is a nice sort of fit and backstop there. I don't think his ceiling is quite as high as Murakami's, if Murakami is able to make adjustments that better stabilize the contact part of his profile. But I think that from everything that we've seen, like, Okamoto is just like a much more stable offensive producer. And I think that it's a nice addition for them, and particularly if they're of the opinion that he can play third, that's a good spot for them. So I like it a lot. And I also just think from an overall off season perspective, I really like the philosophy of let's be aggressive, let's bolster this group. Let's put ourselves in a position where we feel like we're just better able to compete in this. We're not satisfied with being a couple outs away from winning a World Series. We want to go win one. And there's an interesting sort of mix here where it's like, I think that they have some guys who are. Who they've added, who are stable producers. They have some guys who are more kind of like upside plays. And then I think you have Okamoto, who's like an interesting combination of the two. Right. Depending on what the defensive profile ends up looking like, how the power gets actualized in the majors. So I like it for them a lot. I think that their approach this offseason has been really exciting, and I think that, you know, the guys they've brought in are a nice fit, and it's also just nice, you know, they had this. This sort of always a bridesmaid, never a bride thing with some of the big marquee guys, and they've been one of the most active teams on the. On the market this winter.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

And, you know, the combination of being able to sign guys showing that they're willing to spend money and really going for it, I think these things can have kind of a snowball effect where, you know, you become an attractive destination for free agents, and a lot of that is just the money piece of it. But some of it is the want, right? The. The demonstrated. Like, we're gonna. Let's go get it. You know that I think that does resonate with guys. And yeah, I like it. I think it's good. They could. Who knows Who. Like, are they done? I don't know.

[A]

Yeah. I don't know.

[B]

Yeah, I don't know if they're done. Like, they're. They're certainly in a spot where, like, they. On the one hand, they are, at least by our estimates of the luxury tax, they are over the top threshold. And so they are getting into very sharp penalty territory. But I think we only have them a little bit over the threshold. And I would argue. And it's not my money, so it's very easy for me to argue that, but it's like, if you're going to do it, blow it out, buddy. Go get Kyle Tucker. What do you care? You're already paying penalties. Just go. Just go. Just go do it. Yeah, go get one more. What if. What if you want to go?

[A]

One more thought. On Okamoto, Eric had the. The V numbers, how he has performed against the best hardest throwers that he has faced in mpp and. And he's held his own against them. In contrast to Murakami. It's not the biggest sample, but hasn't shown itself to be a weakness. So, yes, I. I do like him, and he does seem to. To fit that mold of guys who can make contact but also still have some pop that the Blue Jays really perfected last season. And yeah, it's been an impressive off season for them, coming off of a pennant and nearly. Nearly winning a World Series. And they have not sat on their hands, rested on their laurels. They go get Dylan Cease and Cody Ponce and. And Rogers and Okamoto. I mean, they've been. Been busy and yeah, they might not be done. And. And I've documented in the past, as has Sam, that the World Series loser is. Is often more active than the World Series winner in terms of remaking their roster that the World Series winner, either they just say, well, what more can we do? We're perfect. We won, so we don't have to do very much. Or they just, you know, it's good feelings and let's just bring back our guys and keep the gang together. Whereas the World Series loser, there tends to be a bit more turnover and maybe it like, lights a fire under you and you feel like, oh, we're so close and. But we have. We have moves to make, and you wouldn't think there'd Be that much of a difference, because in terms of team quality, the pennant winners are. Are generally equivalent over the long haul. So that's playing out here, I suppose. And they might not be done because, yeah, the way they line up now, if. If you have Okamoto and Vlad on the cornerstone, and then maybe that moves Barger to the outfield more often, and you could just put Ernie Clement at second base and you could play Andres Jimenez at shortstop. He gives you flexibility because he could play either middle, infield position. But they could bring Boba Shet back if. If they wanted to. I mean, they'd be a better team with Boba Shet at second base and, And Clement, I know he was just a postseason and World Series hero, but, you know, he's not exactly that kind of player. So having Clementa as a backup and a utility guy, that would be a nice luxury. And if you had Boba Shet at second and Jimenez at short, I mean, that's. That's pretty fantastic. So I. I don't know if they will break the bank like that or get Tucker or whatever, but. But yeah, they. They could if they did want to. There's. There's room at the end, as you say.

[B]

Yeah, there's. There's much less room in the outfield. So, like, Kyle Tucker is a weird fit for them roster wise. But yeah, yeah, like, they could bring Bo back. They could bring Bo back and be like, hey, here's our starting second basement Boba Shet. I think that they should play Ernie Clement every day, though, because I finally figured out who he looks like. And so.

[A]

Right. That's right.

[B]

You know, put Dominic Monahan in the lineup every day.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

So satisfying when you. When you. The pieces fit together and you're like, oh, I got it now. I don't have to keep asking this question on the couch every time. Watch a blue cheese game. Like, who does he look like?

[A]

Who does?

[B]

And then. And then we figured it out, and then I forgot. And then I was kindly reminded again by our. Our lovely Patreon live stream, where it was like someone was like, oh, he looks like. Was he Mary or Pippen?

[A]

Which of it, Dominic Monahan was Mary. Right? Mary.

[B]

Right.

[A]

Yeah. Yeah.

[B]

Right. So the other more sharp featured guy was.

[A]

Yes, Pippin. Yes. Yeah. So I do think that we should start thinking of the Jays as the powerhouse they are. Billy Boyd, by the way. Pippen. The Jays over the past year, you know, they signed Vlad to the mega contract, of course, and they were trying to sign guys to big deals before they were just missing out on many of them. But now look where their payroll is. Because, because they were going up against the Dodgers. I think some less informed followers of baseball saw that.

[B]

Not us.

[A]

No, but not us.

[B]

We were clear as crystal on this question. We were.

[A]

Yes, even the brewers were playing up the David versus Goliath and big spenders versus small market and all of that. And, and that was true. But in the World Series. Yeah. Compared to the Dodgers, they are the big behemoth. And so everyone's smaller. But the Blue Jays had a top five payroll last year. Now they are second in terms of projected luxury tax or competitive balance tax payroll. They are directly behind the Blue Jays and ahead of the Phillies. And, and we're saying they might have more room to spend. And, and that's appropriate, I think, because they have a whole country to themselves. It's not a high population country, but still, disproportionately the people there who follow baseball follow the Blue Jays. And they have a big market. Toronto's big. Their broadcast situation, they're reaching tons of people. They have just a corporate parent that has a huge bankroll behind it. Rogers, like, you know, they should be playing in those waters and jumping into the deep end, spending wise. And they are, to their credit. Yeah, but, but we should think of them that way, you know, where they're just like the big powerhouse. And yeah, in terms of like, track record, they're not the Yankees or the Red Sox, but in recent years and now, and, and their financial resources, they're bigger than those teams. They're. They've shown more of a willingness to spend. They have those resources. So we absolutely should be thinking of Toronto as a, a titan of the sport when it comes to resources. And fortunately, they seem to see themselves that way now.

[B]

I agree. And it's like such a, what a, what a beautiful international group. You know, you got so many different countries represented here. I just think it's, I think it's nice. But yeah, they, they are acting like the top five payroll that they were who were disappointed by the outcome of their season and want to be in a spot to say we're gonna, we're gonna go do, do the damn thing again. And I think it's great. So.

[A]

Yeah, yeah, I think so too. Okay. And, and it has benefited the World Series losers because I've mentioned, you know, there's kind of like a, a complacency that sets in perhaps if you are a World Series winner. Obviously, the, the Dodgers repeated, you know, they made it back just Fine. And they didn't rest on their laurels. They spent tons of money again last off season. But on the whole, in the past, the World Series loser has been more likely to return to the playoffs the next year than the World Series winner, which might be counterintuitive, but it, it does seem as if they are more likely to just be aggressive and, and make additional moves. So good addition bodes well for the Blue Jays. Not a whole lot of other high profile moves have happened. It's just the Giants signing Tyler Malley, I guess. Yeah, man, The Giants, they're so.500. Like they're just the most resolutely.500 team.

[B]

It stands in such sharp contrast with the Blue Blue Jays too, because you're talking about like we have to view them as the powerhouse. Like their, their narrative is so different now than it was 12 months ago. 18 months ago.

[A]

They were kind of grouped together because the Giants were the other team that perennially kept missing out on the top target, some of the same targets the Blue Jays had. But the Blue Jays now have, have nailed it and they've gone to the World Series and they've started signing those guys. And the Giants, I mean, it's just not an inspiring collection of transactions that they have had this offseason. You're talking about like coming off yet another 500 year and you're picking up Adrian Hauser and Tyler Malley and just yawn, you know, it's just like a snooze fest. I mean, it's fine. Those are like, okay, you know, mid back rotation, arms to pick up. But it's not, it's not an imposing rotation. So it's just, just boring. You know, it's not going to get anyone excited for the season. These, these moves they're making.

[B]

It's so funny, cuz, like, I don't want to. I don't know. I think that Tyler Malley, like kind of. I always want to call him Tyler Molly. I know that's wrong, but I do want to call in that.

[A]

Yeah, it's because of that, that H there. It's just.

[B]

It goofs me up every single time. I'm just like, what are we? I think James Fegan wrote the. Yeah, James wrote the sort of player notes for. Because Tyler Molly was on like the back, the back part of our top 50 free agent post. Which, you know, does that have something to do with the constitution of this particular class? I mean, sure, but like, you know, James kind of ran through the issues that he's had. There have been these, the There have been injuries. There was a Tommy John, his velo dipped and as. But as James noted, like, in between all of those things, he kind of carved last year. Like, he. When he was on the field, he was. Or on the mound, rather. The mound is on the field. Anyway. He was very good, you know. So do. Do I like signing Tyler Malley? Gonna get it wrong now. I'm psyching myself out now. Now I'm all twisted. But do I like it as like an upside signing for San Francisco? I do. Like, if you told me that he was healthy, healthy and had a fully, like intact season and was like a three and a half win guy, I'd believe it. But you need the home run signings too, right now. I don't dislike parts of their roster, but it is. It is pretty mid considering the division that they plan now. Like, hopefully you get like a full normal season from Willie Adamus and like Rafael Devers can settle in. And we love Matt Chapman and like, you know, like, yeah, things went better for Jung Hooli in his second year. He kind of got a nice mulligan and now it's like a real. You wouldn't call it a mulligan, but like a second full healthy season. Okay. Like, there's stuff to like here. And Logan Webb's is. I just think that they should try to get back to the postseason while Jesse Plemons can play Logan Webb in a movie. I think. I think that's the way they should mark time. You know, it's like based on how Jesse Plemons is aging. Is that a weird marker for a major league team? Yeah. I'm open to that as a piece of feedback, but I do think, I mean, Adrian Hauser. I'm always going to have such affection for Adrian Hauser now, you know.

[A]

Because of your minor league free draft pick. Yeah.

[B]

Yeah. Like, he really, you know, he really carried the torch for me. He did. That was a big. It was a big good effort on his part. I think that I talked about it at an appropriate amount, at an appropriate level. I didn't go on and on about it, unlike some people.

[A]

Well, yeah, it wasn't quite as impressive an accomplishment.

[B]

I already said this on our episode where we talked about it, that in my brain, he just has Colin Ray's face. And it happened again just now. It happened again just now, Ben, where I'm like, oh, that's what you look like. Yeah, still does. Still doesn't look like Colin Ray.

[A]

I don't know.

[B]

I don't know. What a weird Little what A specific wire to be crossed, you know.

[A]

Yeah. Well, I would like them to swing for the fences and also connected. It's not that they haven't signed anyone to a big deal. They signed Willie Adamus a year ago, and they've signed Chapman to that extension. But, yeah, this offseason specifically, not inspiring stuff. However, there are major moves yet to be made, and that was the last thing I wanted to ask you about here. Just sort of a state of the stove, taking a temperature check on the market. Because, you know, we're several weeks away from pitchers and catchers reporting now, but we're in the new year, and usually most of the big business is done in December, and there remains much business to be done. And now that the posting periods are over, I don't know whether that will make things start to move, whether there were some teams that were waiting to see where will Morami and Imai and others go before, you know, like, will we get Okamoto? And now other dominoes will fall. By the way, I. It is refreshing, I think, that these NPB players have gone to teams that you don't associate with signing NPB players. Not just the Dodgers, though. Yes, it's not the Dodgers, but. And, you know, even. Am I saying that he wants to take on the Dodgers and take down the Dodgers, great. But the fact that they didn't go to the Dodgers, they didn't go to west coast teams, they didn't go to the Mariners, they didn't go to teams with, like, long histories of signing Japanese players. They went to the White Sox and the Astros and. And the Blue Chase, you know, even East Coast. And so it's. It's good to have a little variety, I think might be better for mlb, which is making a big deal these days out of the Japanese fan base and. And the audience over there, you know, you already have plenty of people in Japan watching the Dodgers, right? So adding yet another NPB player on top of Yamamoto and Ohtani and Sasaki, I don't think that's gonna add any marginal viewership, really. But now you're giving a bunch of people a reason to watch White Sox games and Blue Jays games and Astros games, you know, new reasons, so you could get people more invested there in other fan bases and other teams and markets. So another time zone. So that probably benefits baseball as a business, but I think it's also good for MLP fans to think, hey, we're. We're not out of the running when one of these players comes over. Now, is that Just because the Dodgers didn't seem to really want any of these guys or pursue any of these guys all that strenuously. Maybe, maybe it is that the Dodgers just sort of set out this posting period. But, but even so, you know, they, they aren't hogging them all. They haven't kind of cornered that market. They don't have a monopoly on NPP players. So. So that's good. I guess a little variety helps. But. Yeah, so here we are and usually most of the big free agents are off the board by now, but we still have four of the top five and six of the top 10 on other bends, top 50 out there. And that's, that's a lot I think at this stage. I haven't really compared to past quote unquote, normal off seasons, not you know, lockout, off season, Covid off season, etc. But Tucker, Bregman, Valdez, Bellinger still available and, and Bichette as we mentioned, and Ranger Suarez. So, you know, these are big moves to be made on Hang up and Listen. We kind of did a check in on Hot Stove season this week and my co host Alex Kirschner asked me why things are moving so slowly. And I guess I hadn't really internalize that. I hadn't thought of it as so slow.

[B]

I don't think that they're moving that slowly.

[A]

It's not, it's not like, yeah, it's, it's not unprecedented. It's not like what's going on here, you know, but he was wondering like, does this have something to do with impending lockout or whatever? And I don't really think so. I think, you know, sometimes it's just the, the vagaries of, of a market and maybe we'll see things start to move now as the NPB players have signed. But it, it does mean that like we can't close the book on this off season and that there are teams out there that right now look lacking and lagging and their fans are, are rebellious and, and discontented. But by the end of the off season, they still have the opportunity to deliver a big fish. So I don't know, you know, maybe next time we could even go guy by guy and say where does this player fit and who would be the best team decide, you know, where would they make the biggest difference? But there are certainly some teams that the pressure's on I think because like if you, if you look at the most improved teams this off season or the most aggressive and active, probably three of the top five at least. Are going to be AL east teams. It's going to be the Orioles and the Blue Jays and the Red Sox because they've all made major moves and multiple moves. And even if you don't love the Orioles moves, individually, collectively, they've done stuff. They've gotten better, certainly. And the Blue Jays have gotten better and the Red Sox have gotten better from high baselines. The Orioles had more of an improvement to make after this, their disappointing season. The Blue Jays made the playoffs, went deep into the playoffs. The Red Sox made the playoffs, and they have still made moves. The Yankees have still done nada, almost. So, you know, it sounds like they really want Bellinger back, and maybe they'll get Bellinger back. And if they don't get Bellinger, then, you know, maybe they strike for Tucker or something. Like, maybe they have a big move to make. But if you're a Yankees fan now, you're more upset than usual because your division rivals in a tough division, who started the off season looking quite competitive. They have gotten better and the Yankees have just stayed in place. I know they're, you know, going to get Garrett Cole back, presumably, but. But yeah, like, they have not done much. So I don't know who else, like, the pressure is on right now, but they'd probably be number one on my list.

[B]

I think that's probably right.

[A]

Red Sox might not be done either, and the Orioles might not be done. Like, those are two teams that you can point to and say, oh, they. They might still have a big addition. Maybe Bregman goes back to Boston. Maybe the Orioles sign a top pitcher finally. So that puts the onus on the Yankees even more because, yeah, those guys might be getting better.

[B]

I think that part of why this off season has felt slower is that there haven't been as many big trades. So that's part of it. And I think that we do a bad job of separating those in our minds. And so we're like, oh, my God, that off season was so busy. And I was like, was it. Or did Juan Soto just get traded, you know, or signed, as the case may be three off seasons in a row? Or it was like very Juan Soto forward or two. Two, Two.

[A]

Two and a half, I guess.

[B]

Two and a half. Where it was very Juan Soto. Yeah, the Soto of it all. So to. I. I think that a lot of this might just be explained by the midness of this class. I also think that, like, I don't know, remember the year where Bryce Harper and Mandy Machado signed in March?

[A]

Yep. It has happened yeah.

[B]

Like after pitchers and catchers had reported by buy a good beat. And I wonder if like, you know, in a lot of years it feels like the biggest name on the market, like holds up the whole market and then that guy gets signed. And, and I think that this year that's probably not happening to the same degree, but there might be like unrealized trades that are holding stuff up. Like is Katel Marte going to get traded? If he does, that probably changes the dynamic for some of these clubs.

[A]

Right. Or you know, Freddie Peralta, which is likelier than. Than a Marte trade. Yeah, I know, but I don't know.

[B]

I keep talking about how Marte is going to move, so I think he shouldn't. But what do I know? What do I know? Nothing. So it's not that. I think that this has been like a particularly busy hot stove period. Like last year was very busy and it was like super concentrated around the winter meetings. Right. Because we had Soto go quick and then we didn't Freed sign right after that. Right. They pivoted immediately. I remember potting about both of those guys from Dallas.

[A]

Right. They, they pretty quickly. Yeah. It was Freed and, and Bellinger and yeah, they, they made a bunch of moves. It was like, okay, well we're, we're moving on and we're moving on. And Devin Williams.

[B]

Yeah, right, and Williams. And so there was, there was a lot of activity. So maybe this is just like the Yankees being. Being super busy or not super busy and feeling like they needed to be busy quickly after they tried to be busy and failed. Which sounds like they like, you know, got disappointed at a bar or something. But anyway, I. It's not that it's been fast, but it also hasn't been slow. It's been mid and the class is mid. So maybe that makes sense. I don't know that they're. The prevailing winds of a potential work stoppage next off season really have a lot to do with it. And I am still deciding what I think about the particulars of any of these contracts and whether it says anything. Mostly I just don't think that this offseason saying anything. I think that's where I've landed where. It's not that it's fast, it's not that it's slow, it's not that it's any particular way. It is all of those things and none of those things. And it's mostly just I think about the particular guys who are available to sign and how some of those guys markets might be interacting with trade guys who may or may not move. And if they move, it's going to start sort of a domino. Like if, you know, if Catal Marte gets traded, I imagine that we start to see like infield dominoes fall in short order after that. But maybe the teams that are potentially in the market for Marte just are like, enough already. I gotta, I gotta know who my second baseman is, right? Like if Boba Shet is a second baseman, which I think he is, then like, I imagine some of the teams that might see themselves as being in the Boba Shet business are also in the potential Catal Marte trade business. And if they get bored of waiting or frustrated of waiting or decide, screw it, we'll just spend the money, well then, you know, they'll get going. But maybe they're waiting to see if they can trade for Marte. So some of this stuff is like the particulars of how the trade market, which has, which has been slow, I think objectively relative to prior years, is interacting with some of the guys. But also it's kind of a mid class. But you know what? If I'm the Orioles, I should just go sign another starting pitcher because I still think you need some. I still think you're not done. I still think you, I still think you need another starting position.

[A]

I think I might actually say that those three AL east teams are the three most improved teams or, or have upgraded the most or have added the most or projected WAR or whatever. And, and the Red Sox, because I don't know who else would even be in contention. I guess the Padres have been somewhat busy. The Braves, the Pirates kind of though they've, you know, talked a bigger game than they've actually managed to make moves.

[B]

But such a big game. They have talked such a big game. Man, how long is it going to take me to remember that Wilson Contreras is on the Red Sox? At least another week.

[A]

I just hope I get to the point where I remember how to spell Wilson, because I.

[B]

The two Ls.

[A]

Is it two Ls? It's not. I know that they're two something, but two. Yes, yes. It's not just the regular Wilson, but yes. But sometimes I do two S's.

[B]

I every Garrett and Jarrett and yes, double consonants in a name always goof me up because I always, I'm like, which, which consonant is it? That's two. That are two.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

You know, what's up with that? You all should just get together in a room and decide, you know, like all the Wilsons and all the Garretts and all the Jarrett's and all the. Yeah, all of you just all the Emmett, you know, come together as. As a collective and you should just submit to majority rule because it is exhausting. I always. I'm getting it wrong.

[A]

Be conformists for our benefit and convenience. Yeah, I guess the, the Cubs, probably another team that has the pressure on right now. Just.

[B]

I mean, speaking of teams that need to sign a starter. My God.

[A]

Yeah. Or other things too.

[B]

They're also a starter, but also Colin Ray. Colin Ray, though, you know, they're like, hey, we remember what Colin Ray's face looks like. It looks like the face of our fifth starter.

[A]

Yeah. And speaking of a team that is not really flexing the financial muscle that it has. Not that that's new in recent years for the Cubs, but because Kyle Tucker, they're losing, presumably remains embarrassing though. Yeah. And it's just like no one ever seemed to think that they would resign Kyle Tucker. I mean, unless they pull a rabbit out of their hat here. Like before the off season even started, there were reports, you know, maybe leaks or whatever that now he's not coming back. And I don't know that anyone even got their hopes up that he would come back. Which is so odd because why shouldn't they be contenders for Kyle Tucker?

[B]

You should feel embarrassed by other people's low expectations of you. You know, like, not all the time. Sometimes those low expectations are unearned and, and, but then I think especially when they're unearned, you feel a defiance. You feel like you must challenge those low expectations and overcome them. No embarrassment about the collective low expectations, which is a bummer because there are so many fun players on this team and yet there could be more. And all it would cost is money. And you have that. And we're all going to remember that Kyle Tucker was a Cub because of the Rian Johnson. You know, he's never going to let us forget.

[A]

And so immortalized on film.

[B]

Yeah, right. You should introduce ambiguity into our understanding of what year that movie is from by resigning Kyle Tucker.

[A]

It's true. Yeah. As of now, it could only be from 2025. But they have the power to make future watchers of Wake Up Dead Men Wonder.

[B]

Be like, wait one season.

[A]

That was. Yeah, right. And for anyone who's wondering as. As Alex Kirschner was on hang up. So I mentioned this there too, but guys who tend to sign late in the off season and what that means for their financial expectations and production. Other. Ben did a couple of Posts on this last off season and others have researched this as well. And it is true that guys who sign late in an off season, they tend to do worse relative to pre off season expectations than guys who sign early. And so there has been a line of thought that, oh well, teams could or should just wait them out because they kind of, they have them over a barrel if the season's about to start while the player has more to lose because if the player doesn't sign, then they don't play. But if the team doesn't sign that player, they still play. They might not play as well, but they still play. So the player really has more pressure on them to sign somewhere. And so the thinking has been, oh well, teams could just wait them out and get more and more leverage the later it gets. And that seems to be a bit borne out by the idea that or the, the actuality, the reality, the finding that guys who sign later in an off season, they do do worse relative to expectations, financially speaking. But as Ben pointed out, that's not necessarily because teams waited longer. That might be reversing the cause and effect.

[B]

Right. They sign later because they are less productive players.

[A]

Yeah, right, Right. Yeah. There was less demand, there was less interest in them, or there was some red flag that showed up in the proprietary projections or something and not in the public ones. There was some reason why teams weren't all over him. So it, it sort of makes sense that yeah, the guys who signed soon, they're probably the guys who. There was a feeding frenzy, there was a bidding war, you know, because MLB free agency is nothing like other sports with salary caps where everything is kind of compressed because there's a, a finite number of dollars that can be spent and everyone's sort of squabbling over those dollars. It's more protracted in mlb, but it's a little more, more like that if there's a free agent everyone wants and you know, they just lining up to throw money at that guy and, and you might have robust offers early in the off season and so why wait? But yeah, if there's not as much interest, then you might linger on the market. And so that might be why it's, it's more of a symptom than the cause. The other interesting thing is, and also like late in the off season, there are going to be fewer fits available, right, because other teams will have done their work already and there will be fewer roster spots to go around and yeah, fewer potential suitors and everything. But another thing that Ben found is that those late signers, even though they might be cheaper relative to expectations than the early signers, that does not mean that they are a bargain, that they're a better deal because they actually tend to perform worse by dollars per war or whatever than the early signers. And so it might be bad for a player to sign late, but it might not be good for the team either.

[B]

Right.

[A]

Which is, which is interesting. It's almost like a lose, lose. And that could be because of those red flags or flaws in some cases. It's also because if you sign really late, then you're ramping up late and you're rusty and you might not even start on opening day and, you know, a pitcher particularly, that can impact your performance. So for all those reasons, it is generally better to sign early, but if you can't just force it, you know, it's not like, well, I'll just sign early and therefore I will do better. No, it's, you know, is the market there, is the demand for you there. But if you can sign early, great, because then you can get settled and you can plan for everything. And it's better for teams, too, because then they can market that they signed you and you can be on the COVID of the media guide and they can use you to sell season tickets and they can send out an email blast to say, hey, we got so and so, aren't you psyched for this season now? So, you know, you do that in spring training, then it's a little late to generate the same amount of hype. But I would imagine that, you know, all or most of the guys that we named earlier will be somewhere before spring training or before spring training games start. So we will have many major moves to discuss over the next several weeks.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Which is good for, for podcasters, you know, because, yeah, everyone who always says, like, let's have a signing deadline or let's, you know, compress or whatever, and aside from the, the labor considerations and how that might give teams more leverage and everything to have a deadline by which everyone has to sign also, like, yeah, that would be exciting for a day, for a week. And then what are we going to talk about? Yes. And, you know, and yes, baseball would be a big story for that week, but then it will be completely out of sight, out of mind for the next several months. It's a long off season, so I, I actually prefer the trickle. I, I prefer the, the steady drip of transactions as opposed to just, you know, the, the orgy of signings. Okay, why did you gasp a moment ago?

[B]

Because The Ravens fired John Harbaugh.

[A]

Oh, I thought it was going to be this, that there was a big baseball signing and everything interrupted more forcefully.

[B]

Had that been the case. But much like the, you know, wake up, dead man. I want to fix this episode in a particular moment in time. And it is the moment in time when we all learned that after 18 seasons, the Ravens of fire John Hart raw. So there you go.

[A]

But Mike Tomlin still going strong after a miraculous win on Sunday, which I am aware of because look at you. I'm a sports you. I'm a sports you.

[B]

Do you think that my Seahawks are going to win in the divisional round? You can wait to. You can wait until you have more complete information, like who their opponent's going to be.

[A]

But they are super bowl favorites at this stage, right?

[B]

That's insane.

[A]

That's, you know, overwhelming favorites, but kind of like consistent senses favorites. It's just a weird season.

[B]

Yeah, it's a weird season. That defense is legit, though. That is a, that is a good, that is a good group. And, and also Sam Darnold plays for them.

[A]

Yeah. Yeah, right. They can score sometimes, too, because the, the Browns had a great defense, too, but they didn't have anything else and that led to their for NFL firings. Okay. More football talk on. Hang up and listen if you want My football worries.

[B]

Just thinking about it all the time, you know, it's just like, wow, wow, wow. They, you know, and then it's like, we, it's on Saturday. They play on Saturday. I mean, now the Seahawks, they're the ones, they don't have to play this weekend. They get to rest.

[A]

All right, one follow up on Fam for you. That's follow up with a ph, because it's about Tommy Pham. I got some information that I didn't have when we were recording earlier. So I can address one other claim Fam made in this piece. Actually a couple of claims. The article says Fam, a free agent, actually discussed his philosophy with his player agency before the 2025 season when he was looking for a job. I mentioned that earlier. In 2024, Fam posted a.674 OPS, 92 OPS plus. One of his contemporaries in free agency that year was outfielder Mark Cana. 690 OPS, 97 OPS plus, quote. I'm like, look, with all these other hitters, we're not going to win this battle. Fam said, we're not, because I don't have better numbers than them. But I went from the White Sox to the Cardinals and I played 23 straight games against playoff teams. Then I go to the Royals and I play something like 15 games straight against playoff teams. Go make the argument that I faced the top tier pitching for most of the year. Then when they looked it up they were like, you're actually right. Well, when I looked it up, or at least asked Robert at Baseball Prospectus to look it up, he doesn't seem right. According to BP's numbers in 2024, the opposing pitcher DRA minus for FAM's opponents 100.4 where again 100.5 is the average. So yet again, right on the average mark, Cana 99.5 about 1 point lower, which again means better pitchers. So Kanna was facing superior pitchers in 2024 according to BP stats. Now BP's offensive stat DRC plus is kinder to Fam relative to Cana than OPS plus and WRC are. DRC shows just a one point point difference between Cana and Fam in 2024. 99 for Cana, 98 for Fam. But it's not because DRC plus thinks Fam faced harder pitchers. And if we apply some scrutiny to what FAM said about the teams he played, he's claiming that he faced such difficult competition when he was on the Cardinals and the Royals, although those were both winning teams. So I don't know how to square that with the claim that a bad team like the Pirates would face more difficult pitching. But regardless, first of all, he played 23 games a piece for those two teams and 70 games for the White Sox. So most of his season came for the White Sox. But also he didn't play 23 straight games against playoff teams when he went to the Cardinals. By my count, he played 11 games against eventual playoff teams as a member of the Cardinals. 11 out of 23. That's fewer than half of the games that he played as a Cardinal. And then when he went to the Royals, he did not play 15 games straight against playoff teams. In total, he played 12 of his 23 games for the Royals against eventual playoff teams. There were some decent non playoff teams in the mix, but yeah, that's a little misleading. A little exaggerated. Some selective memory perhaps? I don't know. The last time we talked about fam on the podcast, I believe, was in August, episode 2363, when he had had a run in with the Blue Jays. That mostly seems to have left them confused because he got upset that the Blue Jays catcher had questioned an umpire's call on a borderline pitch while Pham was at the plate. And for some reason Pham took that extremely personally and said that it was disrespectful not only to the umpire but to the hitter as well. And then he went on to walk and he flipped the bat. I don't know. Between that and the fantasy football altercation, there seems to be something of a victim mentality or just kind of feeling like everyone and or everything is out to get him. And granted he had a hard upbringing, I can understand how serk circumstances could have conspired to make him feel that way, but I don't know. I am not aligning myself with Blue Jays manager John Schneider, who after that incident this past summer said he wasn't worried about Tommy Fam's opinion on anything really. His critique is valid, but he doesn't seem to have faced uniquely difficult pitching or even more difficult pitching than average. So says BP's data anyway, so there's a little fact check. Fact spelled with a pH. All in all, fan graphs, Baseball Reference and Baseball Prospectus with their different WAR and WARP models are aligned on Tommy fam producing between 2.0 and 2.7 War or Warp over the past three seasons. So even if they're a little off here or there, and of course they could be too high as well as too low, but even if they were off by 50 or something which is a lot larger than opponent quality or the occasional ball getting lost in the sun or carried by the wind would account for for he still hasn't been that productive a player on the whole during this stage of his career, and that might be a tough truth to swallow. We did the minor league free agent draft last time and Megan I mused that the field seemed a little light, that there was a little less talent than usual in terms of players we thought might get significant major league playing time, and we wondered why that was to be clear, we didn't quantify that in any way. Perhaps we can after the season. It was just a general feeling we had. Anthony wrote in to say I couldn't help but think the reduction in minor league free agent talent could be due to the contraction of minor league teams, the reduction in the number of draft rounds and Covid all being around 6ish years ago, which could have contributed to a massive pruning of talent. And so if you're starting from a smaller pool, fewer players will even reach minor league free agency and fewer former major leaguers will be kept on minor league teams because the teams need those roster spots for development. It's an interesting hypothesis. I don't know for sure if the timeline matches up or if that would be sufficient to explain it again, assuming there even is a real reduction in talent there. But if and when we revisit that question, we can consider Anthony's explanation. Also on the stories we missed episode for the NL, we talked about Ozzy Albies and his new 6,000 gallon aquarium. Well, he has a YouTube channel, he has a TikTok, he makes content about the aquarium and his latest is about making some repairs to the aquarium by diving in himself. I have to go inside the 6,000 gallon Baku Piranha shark tank. Whatever you want to call it, these are monsters to fix the tube that is made for the air pump. It's leaking air inside the water.

[B]

I just gotta tight it and one of the repair line fell in the tank also.

[A]

It's on the bottom there. So I'm going in there to fix that problem. I'm draining the tank a little bit. I'm gonna feed them, then we're gonna go in. All right, first step, let's feed the fishes. Thank God I'm feeding first. They look like super hungry. He seemed to be a bit apprehensive about immersing himself in the tank while it was full of fish, but he did survive and repair whatever ailed the tank. It's a fun watch. Obviously he's a hands on owner. Finally, just letting some of our non Patreon supporters know, we Put up our 50th bonus episode for Patreon supporters on Sunday. 50 big round number milestone, discussed several subjects, answered AMA questions from listeners. If you have not yet signed up, access to our Patreon Discord group and those monthly bonus episodes. Probably the most compelling perk. If you sign up now, you can get access to that entire archive of almost entirely evergreen bonus episodes. It's like gaining almost four months worth of effectively Wild instantly. Think about it. We have very much enjoyed making those episodes and it seems like a lot of people have enjoyed listening to them. Good way to get to know us a little more in our thoughts on things other than baseball. Speaking of which, here's the call to action. If you would like to support the podcast you can go to patreon.com effectively wild and sign up to pledge some monthly or yearly amount to help keep the podcast going. Help us stay ad free and get yourself access to the aforementioned perks and others. As have the following five listeners. Eve Gillison, Ezra Axel, Mark Stubblefield, Hannah and Tom L. Thanks to all of you. Patreon perks include not only access to the Effectively Wild Discord Group and monthly bonus episodes, but also playoff live streams, personalized messages, shout outs at the end of episodes, prioritized email answers, discounts on merch and ad, free Fangrast memberships, and so much more. No discounts on FamGraphs memberships for now, but still. Check out all the [e-mail] effectivelywild. If you are a Patreon supporter, you can message us through the Patreon site. If not, you can contact us via email. Send your questions, comments, intro and outro themes to podcastangraphts.com youm can rate, review and subscribe to Effectively Wild on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube Music and other podcast platforms. You can join our Facebook [e-mail] group effectivelywild. You can find the effectively wild sobriety at R effectivelywild. You can check the show notes in the podcast, posted fan graphs or the episode description in your podcast app for links to the stories and stats we cited today. Thanks to Shane McKeon for his editing and production assistance. We'll be back with another episode a little later in the week. Talk to you then. People talk. I want to hear about baseball with nuance and puffy and stats. Yeah yeah. Don't want to hear about pitcher wins or about gambling odds. All they want to hear about my count athletic calls and the texture of the hair on the arm going out of one's head. Gross. Gross. Give me, give me effectively wild. Give me, give me, give me a factory Wild. Give me, give me, give me effectively wild. This is effectively wild.