Episode 2199: A World Without Glove

Summary[]

Ben Lindbergh and Meg Rowley banter about Mike Trout's latest season-ending injury, the Orioles' latest top-prospect promotion, and a tweak to the postseason schedule, and answer listener emails (24:20) about ex-player umpires, eavesdropping on pitchers' thoughts between pitches, whether and how they'd reintroduce baseball to a world without it, awarding belts or trophies for team rivalries, the viability of a pitcher who can't field, how a player could win MVP in both leagues in the same season, how MLB would work if it were Patreon-supported, how international soccer's transfer system would apply to MLB, and referring to a type of player by saying "a [player name]", plus (1:29:48) a few follow-ups.

Topics[]

Why don't retired players become umpires?
World Series will start two days early if ALCS and NLCS finish in under 6 games
What if you could eavesdrop on the pitcher's thoughts between pitches?
How would you reintroduce baseball to a world where it mysteriously never existed?
What if we had a trophy for team rivalries that potentially exchanged hands after each game?
How valuable would a pitcher be if he couldn't field the ball or hold runners on?
What would it take for a player to win MVP in both leagues in the same season?
If MLB were Patreon-supported, what perks would it offer supporters?
What if MLB followed international soccer's transfer system?
Is it correct to say "a [player name]" if there is no other comparable player?

Banter[]

Mike Trout out for the season with a second meniscus tear, and lamenting Trout's decline
Orioles promote Coby Mayo

Final Notes[]

Lexicographer Ben Zimmer's defense of "a [player name]"
Episode 2198] follow-up: Blake Snell's resurgence continues with a no-hitter
Episode 2198] follow-up: Listener quantifies the White Sox playoff futility: They easily have the worst "seasons of existence per postseason appearance" ratio.
White Sox now hold the record for most consecutive calendar days without a victory since 1900.
Episode 2198] follow-up: The history of earned runs as an offensive stat initially

Email Questions[]

Chris: Is it taboo for a former MLB player to become an MLB umpire? Former players have always tended to the coaching/FO/media post-playing jobs but I don't know of any umpires who had MLB careers. Is this frowned upon? I'd think, taking ball/strike skill out of the equation that a former MLB player would at least be handle to player/umpire confrontational aspect of the job better than most (the "short fuse," not able to communicate effectively, etc.)

Bob (Omaha): Watched For the Love of the Game over the weekend, probably for the first time since it was in theaters. Given today's pitch clock, it was a little odd to see Costner take so much time between pitches. But, if we were able to hear Billy Chapel-esque comments between pitches would you be willing to scrap the pitch clock? The first time I saw it, I was caught up in the drama and didn't pay too much attention to the announcing. This time I thought, wait, Vin Scully would actually say that. A quick search revealed that he did a lot of ad libbing so I started to really pay attention. He was brilliant, of course. And the line at the end about a Chapel having his day at the cathedral that is Yankee Stadium was perfect.

Bob (Omaha): The Onion article on the burning of MLB's statistics made me think of the movie "Yesterday." If you haven't seen it, a solar burst hits the Earth and erases the memory of the Beatles from the collective conscience of most people. One guy takes advantage of that and turns himself from a middling singer into a world famous one.

That made me wonder, suppose a solar burst hits the Earth and erases baseball from the collective conscience except for Meg and Ben. What would you do to "invent" baseball and introduce it to the world? This is Ben's chance to get rid of the zombie runner.

Matt: I think it would be fun if each team matchup had some kind of rivalry belt or trophy that would go back and forth between the teams based on who won the last game (same as how boxing or wrestling belts work.)

In my envisioned scenario it would either be between all natural rivals (Intracity/state rivalries, etc.) or ideally each and every possible team matchup. I could see it being both a fun thing at the end of a meaningless Marlins-Reds game in September to see who gets to keep the trophy over the offseason. The fanbases could brainstorm what each trophy should be. It would be fun to see who would get to keep a tacky silver and gold subway themed trophy between the Yankees and Mets. It would be even better to see whether the Astros or the Rangers get to take the comedically oversized 10 gallon hat back to their clubhouse each night after a game.

It would be a new category of stat to track (who has the most current trophies/belts).

Additionally, it could be a charity event if each team in the duo agreeing that the loser team donates $5k to an agreed upon charity.

Is there any reality where this could happen? Am I the only one who would like to see this happen?

Dan: Some episodes ago you talked about a pitcher being unable to field because they broke their non-pitching hand. How good would a pitcher have to be if they truly couldn't field (assume they can't become Jim Abbott who used a glove on his pitching hand). Assume anyone who reaches base steals second and third then home on consecutive pitches. Can they just be an opener and be worth a roster spot?

JJ (Patreon): I had a dream that the answer for todays immaculate grid for the grid "MVP x 2015" had only one answer: Chris Martin. While a reliever winning an MVP in the 21st century is surely a mark of a dream, so is that a player won *both* the AL and NL MVP in the same season. What kind of season would a player have to have to win both MVPs in the same season?

Niklas (Patreon): What if MLB were Patreon supported? How different would baseball be? What kind of rewards could they offer supporters? First pitch? Sing the national anthem? Be a bat person? Would the highest reward be to manage a game?

Harry: I’ve been wondering what it would look like if MLB were to unilaterally adopt the transfer system used in international soccer. As I, a casual soccer fan, have come to understand it, this transfer system works as follows:

• Team A approaches Team B to ‘buy’ a player currently under contract on their team

• Once Team A and B agree on a price, then Team A gets to negotiate a new contract with the player

• If and only if the player agrees to the new contract terms, then they will join Team A

In MLB terms, this is kinda like trading for cash considerations for the teams BUT the real kicker is that the player has to agree to contract terms with their new team before the trade is complete. This would obviously redefine the labor market in MLB, but I was wondering how you think this would affect the game.

For one, it feels like it would give more power to players, seeing as every player would essentially get a no-trade clause and more control over their destiny. But I wonder if it would encourage more owners to spend, as I would imagine a Steve Cohen-like owner would simply throw ungodly amounts of cash at teams and players to get the best players. And then we get into the whole question surrounding young players before they hit free agency - would the Orioles accept $200 million from Hal Steinbrenner to acquire Jackson Holliday, who would then give him a mega contract? And how little would Arte Moreno sell Mike Trout to the Dodgers for, if it meant getting out from under his contract? And would someone with a poorly aged mega-contract like Trout agree to lesser terms if it meant playing for a perennial contender?

The possibilities seem endless!

Adam: The rumors around Garrett Crochet this past week brought to mind another soccer-related "if baseball was different": how different would the league look if EVERY traded player signed a new contract with the acquiring team like is this case in soccer?

In international soccer, teams first agree to a transfer (trade) and then the acquiring team agrees to a new contract with the player before the deal becomes official. There are many benefits to this for players because they can get an immediate raise, or increased play time, or a long-term agreement. But this also creates new wrinkles as it adds complexity to each transaction and there are times that a player refuses to accept a new contract for a lower salary or if the team is significantly worse.

In all it seems like this would be such a significant win for players that owners would never agree to it, which is probably why no one traded for Crochet... as you both said, it will be easier to trade for him and work on an extension over the winter without the trade deadline looming.

Peter (Patreon): I have a pedantic AND grammatical issue I want to raise. It has been simmering in the back of my brain ever since I first noticed it in the offseason, and now I can't stop noticing it. It is the overuse of an indefinite article preceding a specific player name. For example here is a pretty reasonable usage, "The Rangers should acquire an Andrew Chafin." The meaning is clear: Andrew Chafin is an archetype of a certain kind of proven veteran reliever on an expiring contract - a representative example of a whole class of players whose specific identity is not what matters to the discussion.

Here's where it gets bothersome: when someone uses this construction to refer to a class of player whose size is exactly equal to the number of players named. For example, as Spring Training approached I heard multiple commentators suggesting that such-and-such team "should sign a Blake Snell or a Jordan Montgomery." There were no other players in free agency that were *like* Snell and Montgomery (e.g. veteran pitchers with track records and upside but also major question marks). If those two specific players had been removed from the free agent pool at that point in time, there would be no third similar player available right behind them. There were just the actual humans Blake Snell and Jordan Montgomery! Therefore the meaning of the phrase is the same with or without the indefinite article.

In a *different* context, it could make sense to refer to "a" Snell or "a" Montgomery. But in the specific context of March 2024, and in many other contexts, it would only make sense to refer specifically to Snell and Montgomery. Sticking an indefinite article in front of their name adds nothing (and is also kind of dehumanizing, but that's not the focus of my rant).

Those repeated references to "a Snell or a Montgomery" is how I got article-pilled, and now I can't stop hearing it all the time in baseball conversations. It seems to come up in all major team sports, but most frequently in baseball - probably because there is so much discussion about actual and potential transactions.

I regret to say that the specific trigger for this message was hearing Ben ask on episode 2195 "Do you trade a Tarik Skubal?" This was specifically in reference to the Tigers, not as an abstract question for an unnamed team in which case it could arguably make sense. As you yourselves discussed in the follow-up to that question, Skubal is a singular player in the context of the Tigers. One might give you the benefit of the doubt by lumping in Jack Flaherty and saying you meant "Do you trade a good pitcher?" But in the context of the discussion, Skubal's relevant characteristics included his youth and the fact that he is a home-grown player, clearly reducing the set of players referred to by the phrase "a Tarik Skubal" to just THE Tarik Skubal.

Sorry for the long rant, but hopefully by raising awareness of this alarming problem we can collectively effect change.

Notes[]

Ben considers the possibility that Mike Trout is suffering from "the curse of the SuperPretzels". The timeline doesn't quite match up, however, because it appears that he ceased being a spokesperson for SuperPretzels at the end of 2021, but he was injured in the 2021 season.
Meg wishes for Trout to reach 90 fWAR (currently 85.7) just so he can hit a nice round number.
What's particularly troubling is that his second meniscus injury did not appear to be related to a specific physical action. It just happened.
Ben is concerned that Trout's minimal postseason experience means that there aren't any great moments to put in a Mike Trout career highlight reel. His biggest highlight was being struck out by Shohei Ohtani at the WBC.
Ben is impressed that when Jordan Westburg got injured, the Orioles had Coby Mayo waiting in the wings. Westburg has a 127 wRC+, projected with 117 for the rest of the season, and Mayo is projected to be 114.
It was not uncommon in in the early 20th century for baseball players to become umpires. The last one was Bill Kunkel, who retired in 1984.
Factors for players no longer becoming umpires: Players make a lot more money now and don't need to make ends meet by being an umpire. You have to work your way through the minor leagues as an umpire (making very little money), whereas players can become coaches immediately.
In the 7-game LCS era, only five times did both LCSs finish in five games or less, most recently 2022.
Meg feels that Halloween should be an off day so she can hand out candy. "I have to do Halloween. This as a 38 year old childless woman, so you know. But I love it."
Meg is concerned that a pitcher's thoughts would consist of self-loathing. "They call themselves horrible things. Like, pitchers are freaking weird, dude." Ben is concerned that it would just be silence.
Meg mutters that she would reinvent baseball without the dropped third strike rule.
Ben thinks that if he woke up to find that baseball didn't exist, he would assume that he had hallucinated an entire lifetime with the sport. Only after finding that Meg also remembers the sport would he think that something supernatural has happened.
Ben and Meg are concerned that it would be hard to reintroduce baseball since there is no equipment. They figure they would just say "Here's a neat game, let's try it," but not try to take credit for inventing it.
Ben notes that the Mets and Yankees competed annually in a charity exhibition game called the Mayor's Trophy Game from 1963 to 1979, and 1982 to 1983. It was discontinued due to lack of interest and bickering between the team owners.
Ben doesn't think anybody would care about the trophy for two teams that aren't historic rivals. And for existing rivalries, they already sustain themselves without the need for a physical token.
Ben compares the rivalries trophy to other ideas that sound good on paper, but fail when put into practice, like the Babe Ruth Award for the best postseason player.
Meg thinks it's unlikely for a player to win MVP in both leagues, since they would have to be traded while having an MVP season. Ben notes that voters try to spread the awards around, so they are unlikely to give both MVPs to the same player. People considered a silver lining to Shohei Ohtani not pitching this year that somebody else could have a chance to win MVP.
Meg on the pitcher who can't field: "Any time you're into like, 'Is this guy with one weird trick playable?', the answer is almost always 'No.'"
Ben tries to imagine a reliever who is lights-out and can get brought in to get out of bases-loaded jams, but can't quite convince himself that it's worth it.
Editor's note: Episode 1204 considered how good a pitcher would have to be if runners could steal second and third base with impunity. The answer was that Jon Lester is already doing it.
Meg figures that a hypothetical Patreon perk of "you get to play in an MLB game" would have lots of takers. Ben and Meg come up with other ideas, but they also are concerned that the Patreon supporter would be too disruptive or creepy.
Ben and Meg agree that adopting the transfer system would upend play salaries and owners would never go for it. They also are concerned that it would create further imbalance among teams, as players try to escape bad teams and cheap owners are happy to let them go for the transfer fee.
Ben concedes the point about using "a" before a player's name and now that his attention has been drawn to it, he has started seeing it everwhere.
Ben asked friend of the show "Other Other Ben" Ben Zimmer, Wall Stree Journal language columnist, who defended the use of "a" before a player name, even if there is nobody else like that player.
Ben Zimmer also noted that a colleague recently documented a new meaning of "a", when used in phrases like "a rested Schilling", meaning "the condition of the reference from a usual former or hypothetical condition."
Earned runs were originally an offensive stat, crediting offenses for runs scored through their own efforts and ignoring fielding errors, stolen bases (considered defensive mistakes), and bases on balls (considered pitcher mistakes). Richard Herschberger found that Henry Chadwick is generally credited with inventing the concept. The idea of earned runs was talked about in 1871 and became official in 1888. By 1879, it had been reinterpered as a pitching stat.