Effectively Wild Episode 2490: Hogging the Spotlight

Summary

---

Effectively Wild Episode 2490: Hogging the Spotlight

Date: June 12, 2026
Hosts: Meg Rowley (FanGraphs), Ben Lindbergh (The Ringer)

---

Episode Overview

In this episode, Ben and Meg reflect on recent podcast appearances, delight in memorable baseball debuts and moments, and conduct their signature deep-dive analysis of the San Francisco Giants’ season and future trajectory. Peppered throughout are characteristic witty asides, inside jokes, and playful banter, as well as thoughtful listener interaction via email. The episode's main theme is grappling with both the surprising and disappointing stories of the current MLB season, with a particular focus on the Giants and their "historically anti-walking" tendencies.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Adrian Chiles’ Impact and Listener Feedback

• [00:31–03:04]
  • Fond reminiscing about Adrian Chiles' previous guest appearance and updates to listeners:

    “It's nice of you all to show up. I know that the world is a little less bright now that Adrian has left us on the podcast. To be clear, he's still just doing fine otherwise.” (Ben, 00:37)

  • Discussion of Adrian as a possible recurring “UK correspondent,” and playful resignation to his popularity:

    “I'm very clear eyed about where we land in the hierarchy... listeners might just toss us over the side if it meant more Adrian.” (Meg, 02:30)

2. Banter: Memorable Names and MLB Debuts

• [03:04–06:57]
  • Celebration of Lou James Groover ("Gino"), his debut with the Diamondbacks and reclaiming of his family name:

    “He's commonly called Gino... but he has kind of reclaimed the Lou James name... I love it. I think it's a very sick name.” (Ben, 04:16)

  • Lighthearted remarks on the Diamondbacks’ roster of “little guys” and the unique styling of Lou James’ name and T-shirts.

3. Giants' Epic Comeback: The "Ultimate Grand Slam"

• [06:57–13:41]
  • Detailed game recap of the Giants’ rally from a 9-1 deficit for an 11-10 win over the Nationals, capped by a Bryce Eldridge walk-off grand slam:

    “It’s the most exciting possible grand slam one could have, at least when it comes to the score.” (Ben, 08:40)
    “[Eldridge] was the youngest player in MLB history to hit a walk off grand slam.” (Ben, 09:38)

  • Noting this redemption in a “downcasting” Giants season, and discussing the rarity and emotional power of such moments.

4. Broadcasting Humor: “Tarps Off” and “Hog Out”

• [13:41–15:14]
  • On-air antics by Giants broadcasters Mike Krukow and Duane Kuiper:

    “It may be more than tarps off if Eldridge knocks one out of here.” — Kuiper
    “Time to drop trow and hog out.” — Kruko (Ben recounting, 13:41)

  • Meg and Ben riff on where to draw the line with celebratory nudity:

    “When you're in the privacy of your own home, ... you can have the tarps off and the hog out. But in public, we insist on hog in.” (Meg, 14:33)

5. Giants’ Unusual Lack of Walks & Offensive Approach

• [15:16–18:45]
  • Statistical deep dive: Giants' historically low walk rate, contextualized in league history:

    “If we go by walk percentage plus ... [the Giants'] 68 [is] the lowest in the live ball era going back to 1920.” (Ben, 16:23)

  • Acknowledgement of their contrast between power/homer success and lack of walks.
  • Playful fascination with the word "ignominious."

6. Listener Email: The Giants’ Long-term Outlook

• [20:35–35:42]
  • Listener Ian's question: Is the Giants’ disappointment this year significant because of grim long-term prospects?
  • Meg's analysis
    • The Giants’ farm system is intriguing but has concerns about physical projection and distance from MLB-readiness.
    • Skepticism toward the new front office's pivot away from the Farhan Zaidi era, perhaps too far toward an “old-school” style:

      “I worry that the way that they have chosen to zig where others are zagging is to overreact to the Farhan era and go too far in the direction of old-school, non stat-inclined, non-analytically inclined.” (Meg, 25:12)

    • Questions about the process (and possibility) of making changes in the front office when a franchise legend is also a co-owner, i.e., Buster Posey.
    • Greater context of a strong, competitive NL West division.
  • Ben's perspective
    • Sympathetic to the sense of disappointment, but notes he lacked optimism for the Giants’ medium-term outlook even before 2026.
    • Comparison to other disappointing teams: Mets (can spend), Red Sox (young core regressed), Royals/Tigers (different reasons for worry).
    • Notes that the missed opportunity stings more because there’s not an obvious path to quick improvement.

7. Luis Arraez’s Resurgence

• [30:08–32:40]
  • Giants’ acquisition of Luis Arraez and his improved performance sparks mixed feelings:

    “And not just the defensive turnaround… but also that the bat is back more towards peak Arraez... He’s not a juggernaut, but he is a well above average hitter.” (Ben, 30:15)

  • Addressing the hysterics of baseball discourse:

    “We have all of this, like, gnashing of teeth... and now he’s playing well and I feel like nobody’s talking about it... It is kind of funny because… everyone who was getting so worked up about Arraez was shadow boxing.” (Meg, 31:17)

8. Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

On Adrian Chiles:

• “He seemed open to the idea of being an occasional UK correspondent for us. So I hope that is not the last that we will hear of Adrian.” (Ben, 01:51)

On Bryce Eldridge's Grand Slam:

• “He was the youngest player in MLB history to hit a walk-off grand slam... So that's pretty special.” (Ben, 09:38)

On Giants’ Walk Rate:

• “...the Giants are at 68 [walk rate plus]. So lowest walk rate plus... in the whole live ball era. I don't know what has gotten into the Giants or gotten out hog wise, but walk wise they just aren't drawing them.” (Ben, 16:45)

On “Hog Out”:

• “That's the next evolution of tarps off is hog out.” (Ben, 13:42)
• “When you’re in the privacy of your own home… tarps off and the hog out. But in public, we insist on hog in.” (Meg, 14:33)

On Prospects for the Giants:

• “They feel rudderless to me. ...How do you fire from the front office a partial owner of your team, you know?” (Meg, 27:56)
• “...it's more deflating when they fail. So maybe it's changed my long term outlook a little bit, but perhaps not dramatically.” (Ben, 33:09)

---

Important Timestamps

• 00:31 — Reflections on Adrian Chiles’ absence and potential return
• 03:04 — The debut and name legacy of Lou James Groover III
• 06:57 — Recap of Giants’ dramatic comeback and Eldridge’s ultimate grand slam
• 13:41 — “Tarps off” and “hog out” broadcaster shenanigans
• 15:16 — Giants’ four walks in the comeback; context of their historic lack of walks
• 20:35 — Detailed listener email and reaction on the Giants’ outlook and front office
• 30:08 — Luis Arraez's performance, the discourse around him, and broader context
• 35:42 — Closing thoughts and set up for the Patreon-exclusive content

---

Tone and Style

The episode is characteristically lighthearted, colloquial, and self-aware, with both hosts displaying deep knowledge and passion for baseball, ample dry wit, and a fondness for eccentricities—be they in names, statistics, or broadcaster catchphrases. Listener interaction and ongoing podcast inside jokes (Adrian Chiles’ cult status, “hog out,” etc.) foster a sense of community and familiarity.

---

For Listeners Who Missed the Episode

• You'll be caught up not just on Giants news but on why it matters both in the moment and for the team's future.
• You'll enjoy playful banter and hear about some of the quirkiest, funniest moments in recent baseball—and baseball broadcasting.
• If you’re a Giants fan feeling dispirited or a baseball fan who enjoys thoughtful and irreverent analysis, this is a classic Effectively Wild episode for you.

---

End of summary.

Transcript

[A]

More than 2,000 episodes retrospectively filed. And at each new one, we still collectively smile. That's effectively Wild. That's effectively wild. Hello and welcome to episode 2490 of Effectively Wild, a FanGraphs baseball podcast, brought to you by our Patreon supporters. I'm Meg Rowley of fangraphs and I am joined by Ben Lindbergh of the Ringer. Ben, how are you?

[B]

Well, I'm grateful that everyone has shown up to listen to us, even though Adrian Chiles is not here. I know it's. It's hard to go back to a world without Adrian on Effectively Wild, or Jade Van Clay, for that matter. Yeah, we got lots of positive feedback to 2489, and it's just. It's nice of you all to show up. I know that the world is a little less bright now that Adrian has left us on the podcast. To be clear, he's still just doing fine otherwise.

[A]

Yeah. Although presumably still struggling with soap dispensers.

[B]

Yes, absolutely. But I did share some of listeners feedback with him because he seems not extremely online, which is probably why he is such a delightful fellow, or part of it. I don't know if it's a symptom or a cause, but he is not on social media unless he lurks. And so I sent him some of the feedback, some of the rave reviews, and he seemed heartened, he seemed pleased, he seemed chuffed. And I did share with him some suggestions to have him back on the show, which is something that you and I had talked about. Perhaps if the Rays make the playoffs, he might want to come back to talk about that. Or some people suggested a regular Ask Adrian Questions segments. Or he could ask us. Adrian asks questions, right. And he just accumulates some musings, some curiosities, some questions about baseball, and he could share them with us from time to time. And he seemed open to the idea of being an occasional UK correspondent for us. So I hope that that is not the last that we will hear of Adrian on this episode. What a pleasure.

[A]

I mean, the last that we will hear of him on this episode, since we heard from him on this episode,

[B]

but on this podcast. But yes, unfortunately, no secret cameo later in this episode. I hope people will listen on nonetheless. But I did get the sense that our listeners might just toss us over the side if it meant more Adrian just. Yeah, in a heartbeat.

[A]

I'm very clear eyed about where we land in the hierarchy, if only because the number of people I saw who are absolutely not familiar with the show in any real capacity, expressing some delight at him having made a podcast appearance once. A couple of the the Blue sky posts about it broke contain I was I was on an up. I was on a high note after our conversation, but brought to a more realistic place after noting those so yes,

[B]

well, effectively, Chiles, I guess we should rebrand as all right, so we will do some emails this time. We have a few stat blasts in store. I have a bit of banter to lead off and another fellow that I've been delighted by. Maybe not to a child's esque extent, but nonetheless, Lou James Groover. Yes, otherwise known as Lou James Groover III because there have been two previous Lou James Groovers. Correct. And I have reached my quota when it comes to the D words. Debutante, that is so I will not, I will not abuse that word on this episode. But there there have been a few more big first games courtesy of Cole Carrig and Braden Montgomery of the surging unstoppable White Socks.

[A]

First place White Socks, as we are

[B]

recording, first place Lou James Groover did not have that noteworthy a debut game, but it was noteworthy. Just because anyone's major league debut is and because again, I can't emphasize this enough. His name is L. James Groover. He is on the Arizona Diamondback. So you will have an opportunity perhaps to see Lou James in person.

[A]

I saw him live, I saw him

[B]

in person in the debut game. I assume you've seen him as a prospect at some point too. But you were, you were on hand to witness the major league debut of Lou James Grover. Wow. Well, that's exciting. And it was exciting for me just to know that there's a man named Lou James Groover or that there have been at least three. And I was reading up on him a bit and he is commonly called Gino. That's his, his nickname. But he has kind of reclaimed the Lou James name because, and I was reading about this last year, he wanted to reintroduce himself with the name and this is his birth name because it honors his father and grandfather who are Lou James Grover II and First, respectively. And he said, I love it. I mean, I think it's a very sick name. Agreed. I don't really know too many Lou James's besides me, my dad and my granddad. Yes, neither do I. And he also said I obviously just want to keep hearing it, which is exactly how I feel about the name Lou James. And he said, I just want to honor that name, you know, make it worth something. And it's already worth something as far as I'M concerned. However good he turns out to be at Major League Baseball, the name is certainly worth something.

[A]

They love their little guys, the Diamondbacks, you know, and he's 6:2, so he's not like tiny, tiny, but like a lot of their, a lot of their guys are, they're, they're, they're littler. They're littler guys, you know, they're often littler.

[B]

They're no brewers or anything. Yeah, no, I don't think of 62 being small. I mean, I know there's been size inflation for big leaguers over the years, but for a, for a non pitcher at least it's far from diminutive. But for anyone who is wondering how this is spelled, by the way, it is, yes, Lu and then James. But that's all one word. It's. It's kind of a fan. Graphs. Capitalization. Camel Case sort of situation.

[A]

Same situation, yes. Capital L, U, Capital J. Ames.

[B]

He had a Keep it Groovy T shirt. He probably still does. Yeah. Which was when he was playing for the Sod Poodles. The Amarillo Sod Poodles. Speaking of notable names, they made up a Keep it Groovy T shirt and people were wearing it in support of Lou James Groover. And I would like to also, because I support James Groover and his name and his being a big leaguer. So congrats. I was happy to meet him. Also. I don't know whether you saw the Giants game last night. We were speaking on Thursday, so Wednesday. We don't, we don't often lead with our banter just being like, hey, did you see the game last night? Because you gotta specify which game, but

[A]

yeah, boy, I did not.

[B]

That was an interesting ending. So the Giants were down pretty big and then they won. And it's nice for the Giants to, to have an uplifting moment in what has been sort of a downcasting season. But they were playing the Gnats and they were down big. Cause the Nets got out to a two nothing lead and then a six nothing lead and then a six one lead and then a nine to one lead going into the eighth. And the Giants then scored five in the bottom of the eighth, Nationals got one back in the top of the ninth, and the Giants scored five again, put up back to back five spots in the eighth and ninth, and won it 11 to 10 in dramatic fashion. So Matt Chapman had himself a heck of a game. He was 4 for 5 with a couple bombs and a double. But really at the end, the big blow was struck in the end by Bryce Eldridge, who hit an ultimate grand slam walk off winner. So yeah, I mean any grand slam is, is good obviously, but this was the, the ultimate as it is sometimes called. And you know, it's, it's when a guy hits a bases loaded walk off homer when his team is trailing by three, it's the ultimate, it's the most exciting possible grand slam one could have, at least when it comes to the, the score. And this is fairly rare. I think he was the 33rd ultimate Grand Slam on record because you need a confluence of circumstances to make that happen. And Bryce Eldridge did that damage against the Nats, which is his hometown team. He is from Fairfax, Virginia. He grew up rooting for the Nationals. And growing up, I mean, he grew up a long way, first of all because he makes Lou James Groover look fairly small. Bryce Eldridge is 6 7. But also he grew up not long ago because he's 21. One might say he's still growing up in some important respects, probably so. So this was not long ago that he was probably pulling for the Gnats and here he is doing in the nets and probably not even feeling that bad about it because his loyalties are to the Giants. Now this is exciting, you know, nice to see a rook come up, get that kind of big blow, especially in a Giant season like this. But I think what stood out to me maybe the most about it, I mean there were some pretty interesting fun facts that came out of this game and not really the kind that lie either. Eldridge was the youngest player in MLB history to hit a walk off grand slam. So he was a little bit younger than Roberto Clemente who did it at 21, but an older 21 in 1956 though that was an inside the Parker, so maybe that makes it a bit more special. Also, it was the second walk off slam in Giants history. And I almost said San Francisco Giants history, but that would have been inaccurate. You got to go back to when they were the New York Giants, because this was of course the Bobby Thompson home run, June 16, 1952. Or I guess not the Bobby Thompson home run, but a Bobby Thompson home run. So that's pretty special. And he was told about that and he says the appropriate cliches about how it's cool and he's trying to wipe the smile off his face and stay professional, though you don't have to. I think it's perfectly professional to smile in that situation. Nothing wrong with. No one's going to say smiling is bush league when you hit an ultimate walk off grand slam brace.

[A]

I think that that's right. I do think it's funny that we have spent. Look, we're a baseball podcast, so it makes, you know, an obvious kind of sense, but this happens. And it's like the least remarkable comeback that happened yesterday in sports. Really?

[B]

Well, yeah, I know. Well, we didn't lead with the Knicks, but they. They had themselves quite a comeback too. I don't want to slight them. That was quite exciting here in New York.

[A]

But it was exciting for. I was. I was riveted, Ben. You know, I was. And I felt rewarded for not turning it off when they were down like 30 points, which. You guys got to figure that out. But I think it is games like this that kind of help you see your way through seasons like the ones that the Giants are having. It's like, yes. Being able to hold up a lantern in a dark wood and be like, well, maybe we'll get out of here someday, you know?

[B]

Yeah, it is a bright spot. It is nice to have those things to cling to. It's just like a piece of flotsam, you know, it's like the. The ship goes down, but there's some wreckage that you can cling to. Right. And maybe it's. It's not big enough, debatably for two people. And so Leo has to let go and sacrifice himself, even though arguably he could have stayed on there with her. But who knows? That debate will rage for the rest of time. I think what was almost. It wasn't actually most notable about this comeback, but it did stand out to me is that walks played an important part in this comeback. And walks have not been a strong suit for this San Francisco Giants team. They have hit some home runs and they have hit some slams. That has not been the problem as of late. In fact, I mean, they've been slamming like nobody's business. They've got grand slams. That was their seventh slam in a 23 game stretch. Wow. Which made them only the second team in MLB history to do that in a single season. So fun facts upon fun facts here. But it's funny. Eldridge said he was trying to envision it. He always wanted to be that guy in that situation. And often they'll say, I wasn't trying to think home run. I was trying to stay within myself, not trying to do too much. You know, you don't want to swing for the fences. You might end up missing. But how can you not at least think about it, you know, and. And kruck and kype, they were thinking about it too, because they were talking about it on the broadcast in a somewhat nsfw, not safe for work way, where I think it was Mike Kruco, he said, you know, wouldn't it be something? And they were both talking about wouldn't be something. And. And tarps off was happening. People were doing tarps off at the time. And so I think Kuyper just acknowledged that it would be something if there was a grand slam. And they were echoing each other. And Kuyper said, it may be more than tarps off if Eldridge knocks one out of here. And Kruko said, I'm going to hold you to it. Time to drop trow and hog out.

[A]

Hog out.

[B]

Hog out. That's the next evolution of tarps off is hog out.

[A]

That's the criminal evolution of tarps out.

[B]

Yeah. That's when the exposure becomes indecent. And I don't know whether either Kruko or Kuyper followed through on this, and maybe that's for the best. But, you know, once you put that out there, you kind of have to put that out there.

[A]

You don't have to put that out there. You can always reveal that you have thought better of it, and no one will think less of you for having thought better of it. They'll simply say, that's. That's good. You know, we all. We all over promise. It doesn't mean we have to think of it as under delivering. When you keep. Keep your hug in your pants.

[B]

I don't.

[A]

I don't want to call it a hog. Can I get out of that? Can I request dispensation?

[B]

Yes. Hog.

[A]

What did he say?

[B]

Hog. Hog out. Drop trout. Time to drop trout and hog out.

[A]

Yeah, no, you keep hog in, only hog in. You know, I mean, when you're home, when you're. When you're in the privacy of your own home, have everything out. You know, you can just be naked. You can have the. The tarps off and the hog out. But in public, we insist on hog in.

[B]

Behind closed doors is one thing, and not just the broadcast booth doors, because

[A]

right now they need to be your pro. They need to be your private doors. To drop your private drawers. Well, that's the rule. Okay?

[B]

Yeah. Yeah.

[A]

Okay.

[B]

But walks played an important part in this rally because the Giants drew four walks in this game, which doesn't sound like a lot. It's not that much, but for them, it's pretty impressive. So in the eighth, Chapman let off with a homer, and then there was A Devers Dinger and then Jung Huli drew a walk and Bryce Eldridge drew a walk and Daniel Susak, not Andrew Susak as we have made clear, he doubled and Lee scored. And so that played a part in the scoring there. And then in the 9th there was also a walk because Luis Arff with a double and then Chapman doubled to score a rise and then Raphael Devers drew a walk, which has been a relative rarity this season. He's walking less than half as frequently as he did last season, I believe. And so these sort of set the stage and extended the rally and passed the baton. And then Lee singled and then Eldridge hit the walk off and so walks, four walks in one game and three walks in those final two high scoring innings. That's big news for these Giants because as other people have pointed out, but we have not touched on as of yet, they are a historically anti walking team. They do not walk. They are not just the most infrequent walkers this season. But if we go by walk percentage plus, which accounts for the league walk rate, which is important in this season because at least early in the season walks were elevated as people were adjusting to different strike zone and abs and and all the rest. And so for the Giants to have a 6.1% walk rate, that's the percentage of plate appearances in which they've walked this season when the league wide rate is 9.2%, well that is quite low. In fact, according to fan graphs figuring that is a 68 BB percentage plus 68 walk percentage plus. So 68% of the league wide rate and that would be the lowest in the live ball era going back to 1920. You have to go back to Brooklyn in 1918 had a 67 walk rate plus and the Giants are at 68. So lowest walk rate plus lowest walk rate relative to the league in more than a century. In the whole live ball era. I don't know what has gotten into the Giants or gotten out hog wise, but walk wise they just aren't drawing them. And that's a bit of a problem because they do some other things well offensively. But it helps not to have solo shots if you can draw some walks. So all these slams lately, maybe the walks are ticking up. That's perhaps too little too late for them, but still, maybe they can avoid some sort of ignominious history.

[A]

I like the word ignominious.

[B]

Me too.

[A]

We should use the word ignominious more often, which is maybe unfortunate because then you have to have a Reason to use ignominious.

[B]

Yes, but they have. They've given us all sorts of reasons. I pivoted from the noun to the adjective because I was mentally rehearsing how I would say ignominy, and I think that's how you say it. But I. I was more comfortable with ignominious. Yeah.

[A]

Sounds like a kind of rock formation.

[B]

It does. Right.

[A]

Okay. Anyway, remember what I was going to say about the Giants? I got distracted by the word ignominious. Ignominious. I think that I. What I will say is they have some very tall guys to build on, or at least the one really tall guy, and they got a lot of other stuff to figure out. But what are you gonna do?

[B]

What if we made this our paid pod for the week? What do you think about that? Cause I will be without you next time, sadly. And there will be some other guests and such. So maybe, maybe we can just do our paid pod in the middle of the week instead of our third one. As long as it's one a week, the sequencing doesn't matter so much.

[A]

It doesn't. And we said that we did.

[B]

Warned people.

[A]

And if anything is going to inspire people to sign up for the Patreon who had not yet signed up for it. It isn't going to be an episode with two really fantastic guests at the beginning of the week or the episode I think you're doing on Friday, which will have several other really wonderful guests. It'll be me being distracted by the word ignominious. That's what's gonna really tip people over the edge. Ignominious. That and my crystal clear recall of the game that I saw the James Groover in. You know?

[B]

Well, if we had paywalled Adrian Chiles, well, maybe that would have been better business, but then it wouldn't have been. Right. The public would have been deprived of the joy. And plus, we might have given people the false impression that if they supported us, they'd just get Adrian Chiles every time.

[A]

Right.

[B]

And then they take us to the Better Business Bureau or something. You know, false advertising.

[A]

Right. And then. And then we'd have Jade, our other wonderful guest, on us in some fraud case capacity, and then where would we be? We'd be somewhere terrible. So I think we made the right call. It's nice when we don't have to pay all the guests. It's worked out so far, mostly.

[B]

So we will do some emails and I have some stat blasts with the assistance of frequent stat blast consultant Michael Mountain, who, by the Way is now a published [e-mail] indeed Fangraphs Community Research Site published a site, yeah, a topic that he talked about on this very podcast back in 2024 episode 2254 he has a Hall of Fame metric called BOOG that is based on a Wins Above Average perspective on player performance and he has further updated and refined that system and this was optimistically though I think realistically titled BOOG in the hall of fame Part 1 parentheses Introduction so there will be more to come. Stay tuned. But do check out his research which we will link to. But we can perhaps segue to our email segment with a Giants related question because we got one and it's from Ian who says Disappointed and frustrated Giants fan here. I'm sure you're not alone, though perhaps your spirits were raised a little bit by Bryce Eldridge. While I agree that the Mets, Red Sox, Tigers and Royals have almost certainly been more disappointing than the Giants this year, and I take some solace in that. I guess it's nice to take some solace in the fact that other people, other teams might have it worse than you and yours. I did want to point out one part of the disappointment of the Giants that I think puts them in the same tier as those other teams. This is in response to one of our discussions of which team is most disappointing this season. So Ian makes the case for the Giants, he says, despite their middling preseason projections because we had looked at it in terms of performance relative to projections, the Giants feel to me like they are in a win now position and so their underperformance this year makes me feel worse about the intermediate term trajectory of the franchise. While I feel it's relatively likely for the 2027 versions of the Mets, Red Sox and Tigers asterisk, which I will get to to be contenders again. To be honest, I don't know about the Royals this season. Makes me feel like the 2027 Giants are going to be even worse. Our aging stars in the infield, Adamus, Chapman, Devers still have several years left on their contracts and I doubt their best years are ahead of them. The outfield is disappointing and the rotation is fine at best. Even if Logan Webb returns to form and Roop plus McDonald's sustain their performance, that feels like a good, not great rotation. The 2027 free agent class isn't exactly bursting with outfield bats, which we desperately need, but I also don't trust this ownership group to spend on the sort of free agents that I think we need. I want to be measured and not jump to conclusions. But I am losing faith in Pobosie. We settled on. On Buster Popo, right? I think. I think that's settled.

[A]

I don't know that we did decide. Did we go wrong? I gotta say that's. I think that's better than I still

[B]

like Buster Pobo because it just, it sounds more like you're gonna be saying his name and then, and then you

[A]

could do a little switcheroo. I mean, they're both good, but I like the other one better anyway.

[B]

Part of me wants him to trade one of our low level infield prospects, Gonzalez Hernandez level for an outfielder. But I'm not sure we have the prospect depth in addition to those three guys to put together a compelling package. I know I'm being pessimistic to an extreme. Please tell me I am overreacting, but I just don't know how this roster will be better in 2027 or 2028. The Giants haven't been the most disappointing team this year, but I would submit to you that the ramifications of their underperformance are among the most dire. What do you think? And the asterisk was the Tigers perhaps are in a similar position with Tarek Skubal leaving. I'm not that familiar with their system, but my sense is that they have a much better group of prospects set to debut soon and more young guys on the team now who might reasonably take steps forward and, yes, break out. Which he used with some trepidation. Used that term advisedly, but it's okay. So what do you make of this case? That if we evaluate team disappointment in isolation, just looking at this season alone, maybe we miss the ramifications for future seasons. The way that this season's disappointments will

[A]

reverberate, much like the suggested nickname for Buster Posey. I'm open to the suggestion, and I think that the Giants might be a good example of it. I think you have a combination of, yes, aging guys. I think that maybe the depth down on the farm is a little more intriguing than it's being given credit for here. Although I'll note that when Brendan wrote up their system recently, one of the things he took pains to say is that it is a system where the very best guys, and this is setting Eldridge aside, who has technically graduated from prospect status but entered the year rookie eligible, that a lot of their guys are on the littler end with limited physical projections. You have to hope that they can continue to sort of keep pace with bigger and stronger peers as they climb the minor league level. But I think there's some, there's some interesting stuff here. They have operated very well internationally. So, you know, it's not like the farm is completely rough, but a lot of their best and most interesting guys, in addition to the sort of physical potential limitations I've noted, are not particularly close to San Francisco. So there's that piece of it, oddly. And I'm gonna be a real downer here, and I apologize in advance. In some ways, the fact that they have gotten the kind of outperformance they have from Luis Arise this season makes me more skeptical of them in a way because I just struggle to believe that they really anticipated this. All of which is a long way of saying, I think that there is something to the notion that one can, can like zig where other people zag and that can have beneficial effects on a system because baseball is a team, is a league of copycats. And if you are able to identify the, you know, the holy grail of the market inefficiency, you can kind of do well where others are feeling. I worry that the way that they have chosen to, to zig where others are zagging is to overreact to the Farhan era and go too far in the direction of like old school, non stat inclined, non analytically inclined. And so if that is the guiding principle of your roster and you are in a position where you are going to have to get bigger and better performance out of older guys like Matt Chapman, like Devers, like Willie Adamus, that you are going to have to be good at sort of pro identification in terms of who you trade for. I just, I don't know, man. I think that they might find themselves sort of lost in, in the wilderness soon. And, and it seemed, it seemed like, oh, maybe they're being cool and creative, maybe bringing Vitello in as an indication that they have a predilection for outside thinking and, and, and a young perspective. And he just seems like he's kind of in over his head. So I don't know. They feel rudderless to me. And I think the biggest problem that they might face in a long term way is like, how do you fire from the front office a partial owner of your team, you know, what is the like procedure for, for moving on

[B]

and franchise legend right from that guy.

[A]

And that's not to say that there can't be some amount of improvement. And again, there are parts of this operation that seem like they are working well, but I think that there is sort of a retrograde tendency in, in the way that Posey thinks about the game that is maybe not so productive when it comes to having to challenge against big boppers. And it would be one thing if like if they were in the AL west because that's a bad division now or the AL Central, maybe it wouldn't matter quite so much. I mean, I will remind people, as we were recording today, no disrespect intended, the White Sox are winning the AL Central. They're. They're just in first place. It's half a game, but they're in first place. Ben, you know, the teams that the Giants have to knock around against are most immediately the Dodgers, Padres and Diamondbacks. And you know, we could have a conversation about sort of the long term trajectory of the Padres franchise and how great rosy we think it to be. But you know, I think everyone has pretty high expectations of the Dodgers and like the D backs are trying to scrap and be a presence in that division. They have James Groover, so how can they go wrong really?

[B]

Exactly.

[A]

Well, did you see a Corbin Burns had a setback in his rehab?

[B]

Yeah. That's unfortunate. Yeah, so did Garrett Crochet. Setbacks. Setbacks are a bummer.

[A]

Yeah, they're. They're in a rough spot because they have to deal with not only a strong National League more generally from a wild card perspective, but they have to contend with some real heavy hitters in their own division or at least one heavy hitter and two teams that are, you know, sort of alternately scrappy and, and good. I guess the Rockies are kind of a nice gimme in the west, but I don't know, man. Seems not ideal. Although they have demonstrated. Now I'm going back to this other thing. I mean they have demonstrated a willingness to like spend and try to attract free agents, but on the other, other hand, they've kind of failed to do that. And the guys they've gotten always been the best.

[B]

Yes.

[A]

So except for Arise, who is.

[B]

Exactly. Yeah. I'm glad we're getting the good Arise

[A]

two and a half win player. I know.

[B]

And not just the, the defensive turnaround which we've talked about, but also that the bat is back more towards peak Arise Twins Marwin's ERA Arise where he's, he's not a juggernaut, but he is a well above average hitter.

[A]

Well above average hitter.

[B]

Yeah. And there's a maybe a little bit of over performance there. WOBA versus X Woba wise, which you might think, well, does X Woba even work for a Luis Arise? But I don't think he has a pattern of overperforming, really, in the past. But it's fun when he can not only hit for a high average, but have it not be a completely empty average and hit for a little bit of pop and walk more often than he has struck out, which is a low bar, to be clear. He is contributing to that historically low giant's walk rate, but his strikeout rate is even lower, which we love him for. So we have been exhausted by the Luis Arise wars in the past. So it is nice when Luis Arise's war is high enough that we don't have to have the Luis Arise wars.

[A]

It's a funny thing, though, because it's like, I agree with you and we like this profile to be finding success. And like, you know, it's not Luisa Rises faults that baseball, social media can't be normal about anything. But it is kind of funny because we. We have all of this, like, gnashing of teeth and discourse when he's not playing this way and now he's playing well, and I feel like nobody's talking about it, which I know that I have poo pooed that as a trope, because here I am. Here you are. We're talking about it. We have a baseball podcast. But yes. Which maybe goes to show that everyone who was getting so worked up about a rise was shadow boxing. Right? Right. Because who. Who's out there crowing about Luisa Rise right now? No one. No one is doing that.

[B]

We are.

[A]

You were all, we're not. But we're not in a. We're not in a. In a, like a gotcha kind of way.

[B]

No. We're not declaring victory. We're not spiking the football or anything. We're just saying we enjoy Luis Rez, and it's nice when we can enjoy him in a less complicated way, a less fraught way. Yeah, it's nice. Yeah. His ex Wopa is identical to last year, so just putting that out there. But nonetheless, if he can keep fielding and even running the way that he has been, then that's okay if his bat declines a bit from here. Okay.

[A]

Okay.

[B]

White Sox, best team in Chicago to date. Sorry, Cubs fans. It's been bad for you lately.

[A]

I know it's been bad for them lately. It has been a not good time. Although, as we are recording, and you know, I hesitate to say this because who knows where it might be at the end of the episode, but as of. As of now, they are winning. They are up six two on the Rockies top five. So that's nice. Yeah, they got a runner on, two outs. Who knows where it might go.

[B]

Hold that lead. All right. As to Ian's point, I think he has one and I think it's a valid one. I will say I wasn't particularly bullish about the Giants beyond this year coming into the season, but maybe that's part of Ian's point that that because there was a lot of uncertainty about whether the Giants would be good beyond 2026, then that put the onus even more on this season when it seemed like they were at least going for it and that this might be their best chance in a little while. And so it's more deflating when they fail. So maybe it's changed my long term outlook a little bit, but perhaps not dramatically. But maybe that again makes this feel even more like a lost opportunity. Not that I had very high expectations for the Giants in 2026 either is the thing. Maybe I was just very low on them anyway. I didn't expect them to be this bad, but I thought that probably their realistic ceiling was somewhere in the same.500ish range that they have been for quite a while now. So maybe I just kind of came in not having any high hopes. And so it's hard for low hopes to be dashed. But talking about those other teams, you could say, okay, the Mets, certainly disappointing in that there were higher hopes for them this year. But the Mets, it just feels like with Steve Cohen's bankroll, they're at least kind of conceivably able to. We saw how they turned over the roster this past offseason. Maybe not to great effect, but they shouldn't be that far from being good again in theory. And then the Red Sox, now that's one where they seemed like a team on the rise. Not a rise, but the rise. And then everything kind of backfired and went south for them. And also some of the young core has not progressed and has maybe gone backward. And so that's bad for the long term outlook because you kind of thought that, oh, they're poised to contend and they're coming off of a contending season and it seems like it should only be better from here and those young guys will just develop and progress and then that just hasn't happened. And so maybe that starts to make you question the long term future of a team that seemed to be set up well and to have quite a firm foundation. So it's always an interesting debate who's most disappointing loss of team 7 of valid cases, valid claims to that title.

[A]

It's rough in a season when, you know, at least at the beginning we were like, wow. No, historically bad teams, Amazing. We've moved on. But there, there's a lot of very depressing. Well, it's not even mid. It's like low mid, beneath mid.

[B]

That'll do it. For the free preview of today's Effectively Wild, thank you for listening. If you'd like to listen on and hear hear whatever wisdom and wit await, we would love to have you. You can visit patreon.com effectivelywild to access the rest of this episode and plenty of other exclusive content. Weekly subscriber only episodes, monthly bonus shows, our Discord group, our livestreams. Either way, we will be back with another episode soon which will appear in full on this feed. Until then, we wish you well and thank you for your support of Effectively Wild. Whatever form it takes.