00:00:01
Welcome. Welcome to Wharton Moneyball. Welcome to a full hour of sports analytics here on the Wharton Podcast
00:00:08
Network. This is Cade Massey hosting with the whole crew. I think it's been a while since we've had
00:00:13
everybody in here. Eric Bradlow is here. Adi Wyner is here. Shane Jensen is here.
00:00:16
Those three responsible adults are on campus being professors. I am in a long way from
00:00:23
uh campus, but trying to be a responsible adult. Some combination of us are here
00:00:29
almost every week of the year, 48, 49, times a year. We've been doing it for
00:00:33
more than 12 years now. Just passed the 12-year anniversary at the top of March.
00:00:37
We are recording on a Tuesday afternoon as we typically do. The show will go up in the wee hours of Wednesday. We're
00:00:44
going to follow our usual format this week. We're going to start with the guest in the first half hour and open it
00:00:51
up, open lines, open topics in the second half hour. Good time of year, lots of things going on. Glad to
00:00:57
have the whole crew back. We are going to turn it over to Adi Wyner to introduce our guest and to lead the
00:01:02
interview with that guest. Our guest being a long time friend of our friend Adi Wyner. Adi.
00:01:09
Happy to introduce uh Professor David Henkin. Um David and I go back almost 40 years now. It's hard to believe that
00:01:16
I've done anything in my life for almost 40 years, let alone known a human being
00:01:19
starting as an adult. We were both at undergrads at Yale together. Um and then we were also um
00:01:26
I guess technically colleagues at at Berkeley. You were You were just starting as a professor when I was uh
00:01:30
finishing my post-doc at at Cal, but you stayed at Cal ever since as a professor
00:01:35
of American history. He's the author of several books. I've read one of them. Um
00:01:39
these are terrific books, but they have nothing to do with sports. You can go get them on your own time and look them
00:01:43
up. But most recently and most interestingly to our group, David is the author of a recently um
00:01:49
released book called Out of the Ballpark, a book about baseball, which is um so obviously something that's near and
00:01:57
dear to all of our hearts, especially to uh the New Yorkers. And David is a New Yorker by by by birth, but he is
00:02:03
actually a St. Louis Cardinals fan. I knew that about you, but I had actually no knowledge that you were how big a
00:02:08
baseball fan you were. So, welcome to our show, Professor David Henkin. It's
00:02:11
great to have you. It's lovely to be here. Um and for what it's worth, I was actually not I was
00:02:17
born in France, which might have disposed me to root for a former former French to city instead of instead of the
00:02:24
Yankees. That is a tidbit I did not know about you. So, there you go. Something that you learn. I'm going to actually
00:02:29
before we actually begin the interview, I'm going to read a the my most favorite
00:02:33
quote about baseball um that and because David's an author and he's a historian and he's a intellectual
00:02:40
and he brings a a a view to baseball that's not what we typically bring. And so, I'm going to
00:02:46
start with this quote. Um baseball breaks your heart. It's designed to break your heart. The
00:02:51
game begins in the spring when everything else begins again and it blossoms in the summer, filling the
00:02:56
afternoons and evenings. And then as soon as the chill rains come, it stops and leaves you to face the fall all
00:03:01
alone. You can count on it. Rely on it to buffer the passage of time to keep the memory of sunshine and high skies
00:03:07
alive. And just to end the days are all twilight when you need it most, it stops.
00:03:13
Does anyone know who wrote that quote? I know I'm sure that David does, but anyone else?
00:03:19
David, do you do you know who wrote that? It has echoes of Bart Giamatti, but >> That is Bart Giamatti and and I brought
00:03:26
it in because it's the best baseball quote I've ever read. It captures I
00:03:29
think everything that you one needs to know about the connection between baseball and I think in America's
00:03:33
pastime. Um and of course, we were both at Yale at the same time when when Giamatti was
00:03:37
our president. Um I think he left right around the same time you did and and I was stuck with Benno Schmidt for the for
00:03:43
the last couple years. You missed those those seasons. Anyway, so David, you're
00:03:46
an author of this great book which I did read and I'm going to start by just
00:03:50
asking you a question about it. Um, one of the things that you talk about is that baseball isn't about one thing.
00:03:56
What were you thinking when you were pushing back against the tradition of baseball as a, you know, a bunch of
00:04:01
a story about teams, players, accomplishments, but as maybe is it a grand metaphor for America? Is it
00:04:06
something else? Um, so tell me about how you came to write this book and what and
00:04:10
and what's what is your take on the origin? >> I came to write the book because
00:04:16
Oxford University Press asked me if I would do their very short introduction to baseball and it's not something that
00:04:22
I had had had published on before that I do teach about baseball sometimes in the
00:04:26
context of of of larger developments and I started to thinking about, well, you know,
00:04:32
what is my take on baseball and I thought about all the things people have said about it including the quotation
00:04:37
that you just read Audi and the contrarian you know, or the maybe the skeptic or at
00:04:44
least the splitter in me. I'm I'm often interested in in differences within
00:04:48
things that appear to to to be to be the same came to mind. So, so many of the things that people say
00:04:55
about baseball as as as a whole draw my draw my suspicion. First of all, that has to do with the
00:05:02
unique character of the United States in part because I'm not sure what there
00:05:07
is a unique character to the the United States. But also because and I point this out in
00:05:12
the book, a lot of the things that people say about baseball actually contradict one another. I mean, it
00:05:16
doesn't mean that one of them couldn't be true, but but I've heard people say
00:05:19
that baseball is about punctuality and and precision and I've also heard many
00:05:25
more people say that it's about the opposite, it's about living off the clock, it's about leisure.
00:05:31
Lots of claims about baseball are connected to pastoral settings and connected to the
00:05:38
natural rhythms of an agrarian society. >> I will cornfield kind of like Exactly.
00:05:44
Yeah, and and and that's sort of you know, that that flies in the in in the face not only of all the other
00:05:51
cliches about baseball being city kids on the Lower East Side playing stickball, but also flies in the face of
00:05:56
the actual history of the game as an urban as urban sport. I've heard people claim that it that
00:06:02
baseball is American because it's about individualism and you know, one better at a time and
00:06:08
everyone for themselves. And I've also heard people say that it's about America because it's about
00:06:13
teamwork. So people disagree about what America is, they disagree about what baseball is, and they also ignore the
00:06:19
fact that at this point in history baseball really is a multinational sport. It's not global in this in the
00:06:25
way that soccer is, but of course but it is the it's the national team sport
00:06:29
of Japan. It's at least as popular in the Spanish-speaking Caribbean as it is in
00:06:35
in North America. You know, and and uh the World Series gets higher TV ratings in Japan than it does in the US. And
00:06:45
we've a lot of us probably watched the recent World Baseball Classic and have
00:06:49
been impressed not about the players but by more by the the fan cultures that have grown up outside the United States.
00:06:56
So rather than look for the one thing that baseball is, I've tried in this book to think about many different
00:07:02
things that baseball has been in in different settings over time. So that's one thing that I sort of
00:07:07
wanted to push back on. The other thing I think I wanted to push back on is the idea that baseball is fundamentally
00:07:11
different. Which is another one of those contradictory cliches. People always say
00:07:15
that baseball is completely different from what it used to be, which would make it much harder to claim that
00:07:19
baseball is about one thing or it's about the essence of timeless American national character.
00:07:25
So they're actually going the other direction which I I'm you know, baseball
00:07:28
obviously changes in many ways because society changes, but but baseball um uh uh
00:07:34
I think a lot of what makes baseball interesting as a spectator sport has actually persisted. And the and the
00:07:40
things that baseball fans and commentators and players and and owners have wrestled with over time have
00:07:46
largely been the same sorts of struggles and same sorts of sorts of themes. So, those are some of the things I was
00:07:51
looking to do in in in this book. Yeah. So, I have I have a bunch of follow-ups,
00:07:55
but I'll go to Shane. Well, one I just cuz you talked about the fan experience and one thing that
00:07:59
kind of really caught my attention reading your book is you talked about basically fan the
00:08:05
I think your quote is the persistent and widespread practice of individual fans scoring by hand, which has no parallel
00:08:12
among spectator sports. And I you know, it maybe kind of really like I you know, I I thought I started
00:08:18
thinking about that. No, this I started thinking, oh, there must be some other sport that does hand kind of scoring
00:08:22
this way and it and I I I couldn't come up with anything and I I I maybe could
00:08:26
expand a little bit more about that. To me, it got me thinking that maybe baseball in this particular
00:08:31
respect is this really nice it's it's it's complicated enough that it's not a
00:08:36
trivial or tedious exercise to kind of score by hand, but it's not so complicated like that you can't kind of
00:08:43
score it by hand in sort of a simple sheet format. Can you maybe talk about a little bit more about that? Sure. I
00:08:49
remember when I was reading the proofs for this book and that was one of those lines I was like, uh, someone's going to
00:08:53
like tell me that in fact in in Pakistan, people score cricket exactly with the with the same
00:09:01
uh, but but but I left it in there cuz I I I I didn't know that it wasn't true. Um,
00:09:06
and it it it does So, so, uh, I think that the practice of scoring a game captures a couple different things.
00:09:13
It first of all, it it focuses on the fan as a crucial producer of the thing that is that is baseball as a spectator
00:09:21
sport. And that's not unique to baseball, but I think baseball was really at the vanguard A lot of the
00:09:25
things I point out in this book, um, are things about baseball that are at this point true of many other spectator
00:09:31
sports, but appeared first and most prominently in baseball. So, that's one thing. But the other thing is the
00:09:35
scoring. The they producing a record record that's ideally redundant with the
00:09:41
public one, right? I mean it was it's not like if if I I don't sit in in the
00:09:46
stands at you know at at Wrigley Field and produce an an an actual record. There isn't going to be one. So it
00:09:50
serves no practical purpose. It inserts me into the game because scoring is such a huge and by scoring I don't
00:09:59
mean scoring runs. I mean the act of recording the statistical achievement of the game
00:10:05
is such a big part of the game. It's how you mark that you were there. There are
00:10:08
people who will score a game that they're not attending. But the fact that that's a that's a somewhat
00:10:15
I think it's a It's rare. It's a little perverse. It's even maybe a little bit
00:10:21
I mean it's it's it's it's it's a little bit deceptive. I mean because you're
00:10:25
claiming a relationship that again that you didn't have. So in the same way that people like to
00:10:31
catch a foul ball as a as a kind of a a trophy or a token of their participation. The scorecard itself is a
00:10:38
trophy or token of participation cuz you were there doing a crucial thing. The crucial thing of course wasn't throwing
00:10:45
a ball or hitting a ball or pitching a ball or catching a ball. It was instead participating in the
00:10:51
practice of keeping tabs. And notice how many of the tabs that we keep are not simply about whether a run was scored or
00:10:59
a base was attained but also who should get credit for that because we're we
00:11:03
need to record whether whether there was an error or whether it was a hit or whether
00:11:07
it was a pass ball or a wild pitch. So we're participating in the discourse of assigning credit or blame for things
00:11:15
that don't actually affect the outcome of of the game. I mean the play does but
00:11:20
whether you call it a wild pitch or a pass ball has no bearing on on the on the outcome
00:11:26
of the of the game. But we care very much that someone record it. And if we're at the game, we want to be
00:11:31
participating in the in the in the practice of of of of registering that judgment. So,
00:11:38
David, I'm going to just follow up with that. Something that you did touch a
00:11:41
little bit on the book, but I think it's something that for all of us who grew up
00:11:43
with baseball as a child really feel. I didn't learn to hit the ball or throw the ball from my parents,
00:11:50
from my father. My dad taught me how to score it. And when I first went to a baseball
00:11:54
game, he he sat down and we bought the scorecard at Yankee Stadium, which was not the yearbook. The scorecard was
00:11:59
cheap. And we And he taught me how to fill it out. And we did that together. And
00:12:04
today, every time I go to a baseball game, I'm sitting next to him. And that
00:12:08
is something that I think in in many ways attracts people to baseball cuz you cuz of that connection,
00:12:14
particularly in non-athletic families, right? So, we have that connection. But But just And I think that I think in
00:12:22
some ways keeping score really is is is a unique thing. Although Dean Oliver, who essentially learned He
00:12:29
did that for basketball. But he invented the the act of of doing that for basketball. And now it's done
00:12:35
automatically, but but he realized there was a giant hole in assigning credit in
00:12:39
a basketball that didn't exist. And he essentially created that phenomenon. And
00:12:42
And we argued recently he should be the first analyst to go to the Basketball Hall of Fame, a non-player, because he
00:12:48
did that. But you mentioned one thing that you think that is is also unique about baseball.
00:12:54
For those of you who haven't read the book, baseball, unique to any sport, has
00:12:58
the crack of a bat. The sound of that crack of the bat is is it's a it's an oral sound that I don't
00:13:05
think any sport kind of has that that um that Well, hold on. Okay, let's let's
00:13:11
quick round robin on a on let's just do quick quick quick quick quick. Fellas,
00:13:14
quick. Other noises in other sports, Shane. Doink. Two different doinks. One doink is a
00:13:22
field goal miss off the goal But what about what about a post in hockey? What about a post
00:13:27
>> thinking the field goal or the double doink even. Yes. The double doink even.
00:13:30
Very famous in Philadelphia, the double doink. What about the swish or the clip of a
00:13:35
net on a real clean basketball shot? So, I'm not saying there's I'm not saying
00:13:39
you've got a distinct sound, but there are a few other aural experiences. >> One's easier to hear around the world
00:13:44
than the other though, for sure. I mean, I'll let David answer the the sound of crack of the bat also
00:13:48
hugely differentiated, right? So, Hank Aaron's crack of the bat was allegedly
00:13:53
something to behold and it it changes by the the type of the batter or the the contact, etc. etc. So, you learn a lot
00:13:59
from the crack. >> It's it's also different in amateur amateur versus pro. Amateurs ding ding.
00:14:04
The aluminum bat is not the same. The aluminum bat is not the same. So, I mean, you know, the crack of the bat is
00:14:09
is loud. I I To to me, the interesting question is uh how these sounds register um on the radio because
00:14:18
uh a lot of baseball's popularity grew with the radio. Uh people listened to boxing
00:14:23
matches on on on the radio, too. So, it wasn't And people listened to horse races on on on the radio. But, this
00:14:28
baseball was really the the first team sport that was popular in in in in radio. And uh the crack of the bat, both
00:14:35
the real one and and and the simulated one. There's there's As you've seen the
00:14:39
film Bull Durham, you know, when when the when the team goes on the road uh and then the broadcaster like bangs a
00:14:46
like a bat in the in the studio instead. So, I I I think those became sort of hallmarks uh
00:14:51
and the roar of the crowd. When you listen to football or basketball, the roar of of of the crowd is helpful. Um
00:14:58
but the the the doink, I I I don't think it's really audible. The doink in hockey
00:15:02
also is is is and the swish are not audible. The The crack of the bat often still is au- audible when you listen to
00:15:08
baseball. People do listen to baseball quite quite a quite a bit. Baseball, I think,
00:15:13
is a is a somewhat more radio-friendly sport than than uh than some of the others that that that we're talking
00:15:19
about. So, the crack of the bat is a striking thing at the ballpark, but I'm
00:15:23
especially interested in the in the crack of the bat and the roar of the crowd in terms of of how baseball was
00:15:29
experienced during many decades where most fans were actually listening rather than I I think also David to build on
00:15:35
what you just said, the thing about baseball that makes the radio valuable is it's one pitcher one batter. I
00:15:41
understand there fielders and everything, but like you can picture what just happened and you can attribute
00:15:47
credit or blame to what just happened. Much harder to do in other sports. Yeah, that's true. I I find for example
00:15:55
hockey extremely difficult to listen to on the radio because I want to see where
00:15:59
everyone is at all times. Um Yeah, so no I I totally agree with that Eric. Well good so that's good to segue.
00:16:06
I mean I'll just we talk about all the differences. When I try to teach baseball to people who are who are
00:16:10
coming in from abroad or never been to a game, I try to explain that it's fundamentally a team sport played by an
00:16:15
individual um situations almost like an Olympic sport. Like we can we can judge the quality of a performance clearly
00:16:22
individually um in a way that you can't so clearly do in any other sport. Um so
00:16:27
it has that both of those things mixed together. And that kind of leads to the to the the chapter I guess we can focus
00:16:32
on. This is a chapter you have called accounting which really is closest to our hearts. It's a it's not actually
00:16:37
called statistics. You You chose deliberately to call it accounting which I think makes sense given our
00:16:41
conversation about scoring. It's not just about statistics. It's also about
00:16:45
how the statistics come to be. Um So my question is and and you make a point about this and it's I think it's
00:16:50
something we've talked about on our show to some degree um which is that uh we like to think of the baseball's
00:16:58
obsession with statistics, particularly advanced statistics, as something that's
00:17:02
somewhat new to the say the Moneyball era. One of the things you point out is it's not new. It's in fact some of the
00:17:08
major findings that we like to attribute to Moneyball that the idea of a base percentage mattering, um hitting home
00:17:14
runs and and things like that and batting average and being such a particularly good metric. Those are know
00:17:19
have been known for a very long time. So, why don't you can tell us about evolution of statistics, um how
00:17:24
Moneyball really isn't new, and and just uh give us some thoughts on that on that
00:17:28
area. Yes, I mean I mean uh there are some news I should say cuz I'm I'm still
00:17:32
I'm about to say what you said I I say that cuz I'll I'll I'll the the
00:17:35
disclaimer to be clear. Uh there are a lot of interesting things that are new about the way in which baseball is is
00:17:42
discussed, played, um and accounted for uh in the so-called Moneyball era. But, one that's clearly not new is an
00:17:49
obsession with statistical accuracy and a great faith that numbers, and especially large numbers, um
00:17:56
uh can play an explanatory role in appreciation of the game. I mean that's essentially what what Moneyball is
00:18:05
is about. I would say that goes back at the very least to to to know to the middle of 19th century and Henry
00:18:11
Chadwick, who was a sort of a British-born um immigrant American uh journalist who
00:18:19
played a large role in creating things like the box score and championing the batting average uh and talking about
00:18:27
earned runs. Um and he had many he had many things on his agenda, but one of them is is the Moneyball
00:18:33
project, which is uh great faith that large large numbers can explain meaningful things about game. Now,
00:18:40
what's what's there a couple things that that that that are different. One is
00:18:44
that uh um in-game strategy uh pays much more attention to the insights of those large
00:18:52
numbers than they used to. I think the misconception is that we've gotten better at counting.
00:18:58
Um and we've gotten faster at counting, obviously. But, I'm not sure we've
00:19:01
gotten better at counting uh or more meticulous in our record-keeping uh as as a little larger culture. It's
00:19:08
just that um in-game strategy been somewhat resistant to the insights of those. So, for example, Philip Roth's
00:19:17
1973 novel, The Great Great American Novel, features like a 7-year-old kid who has
00:19:24
run the numbers as you're supposed to do when you're a 7-year-old kid. Like
00:19:27
whether your father is scoring or whatever. He runs the numbers and he says, "No,
00:19:31
our best hitter should actually be in the first or second spot in the lineup, not in the fourth."
00:19:36
Uh bunting does not make sense. And he he said all all all all the all the all the click all the you know all all the
00:19:41
clichés of the post-Bill James era. Um and you know and and and he's resisted
00:19:49
in in in in the book. But but you know Philip Roth didn't make that up. These
00:19:54
these were insights that a number of including the professors of of of statistics like like like yourselves and
00:19:59
people in the in the military um had written about and published articles in in in scholarly journals. So, one
00:20:06
difference is yes, it's it's it's much better reflected in the way that the
00:20:10
managers manage and and even the way players play. Uh There also is I think an interesting to
00:20:17
me difference in the way that these insights are deployed by fans, which is there are a number of statistics now
00:20:24
that are interesting to me because they're actually not about the traditional goal of assigning credit or
00:20:31
blame for the outcome of a game. So, what Chadwick wanted to do, this was like the classic model, is the game is
00:20:36
complicated. Um a hit doesn't necessarily uh lead to a run. Many things have to go
00:20:42
wrong or right to produce an outcome. But let's figure out whom we can praise
00:20:46
or blame for their contribution to what actually happened. But now we have all these statistics that are much more
00:20:52
interesting, especially to to teams, that are are trying to project and and assess the value of a player that are
00:20:59
not about what happened. They're about what like screening out the noise. So, for
00:21:04
example, fielding-independent pitching. Right? So, that's a that's a or uh or Babbitt,
00:21:11
the batting average of balls balls in play. These are statistics that are designed
00:21:15
to screen out the role that an individual contribution made to the outcome. Uh because the outcome is sort
00:21:22
of noise, right? Uh the outcome might tell us something that's interesting to fans or to bettors
00:21:27
or whatever, but but we want to know whether this player is likely to be able to do something good in the future,
00:21:32
which we want to know in order to decide how to evaluate and assess this this player as as as as a commodity, we
00:21:39
want to know the things that he had control over. We want to pay a lot of attention to to think like a pitcher's
00:21:45
uh walk and strikeout rate. We want to pay a lot of attention to isolated power stat stats or even, you know, the exit
00:21:51
velocity of a foul ball. Um uh we want to know sprint speed. We we we we we want to focus a lot on
00:21:57
things that may or may not have contributed, and in order to isolate those things, we will often want to
00:22:03
disregard things like whether the ball was a hit or not. So that is new, right? Before I before I go to Eric, I just
00:22:09
want to a comment. I mean, in some levels historically, we were all historians. Statistics were helping us be
00:22:15
historians. Like like you I mean not like you, but yeah, same idea. We always talked about what happened, and the
00:22:20
assumption was the best predictor of the of the of the future is the past. And we
00:22:24
now we're becoming actual statisticians. I mean, cuz what we realize is the past
00:22:28
is a mixture of innate talent plus noise. And these statistics are there to screen out that noise, and we can get a
00:22:35
better estimator. I can use statistical language to do that. And that's what
00:22:39
it's great to listen to you say this, cuz what you're realizing is that the
00:22:42
fans have become statisticians. Right? Yeah, and they've also become more like general managers.
00:22:47
>> Mhm. Right? >> Yeah. Um in other words, they've got a little bit less uh Fans famously have
00:22:51
liked to to play the usurp the role of umpire, but also they've liked to usurp
00:22:56
the role of official scorer, and they've also of course like to usurp the role of
00:22:59
manager, right? W- Why do we bring in this relief pitcher in that situation? Why do Why do Why do we let Pedro stay
00:23:06
in the game kind of thing? Um Appreciate that, T Car. Yeah. Thank you very much.
00:23:15
You know, now when when when when when we let fans We listen to fans speak, you can see
00:23:21
them identifying with the general manager. And for And for that purpose, they want to talk
00:23:26
about whether someone is likely to be good in the future not whether they've
00:23:30
been good in in in the past. And that's part of the reason why they're drawn
00:23:34
They're drawn to that kind of vocabulary. So, that that's that's that's my take on what is and what isn't
00:23:39
new about about Moneyball's dizzy. Now, what is really new about about the larger culture of watching baseball
00:23:47
and is technologically new is video capture. I mean, these are things we couldn't
00:23:51
we couldn't talk We couldn't talk it We could talk about how fast a pitch was
00:23:55
based on a radar gun, but we we couldn't talk about spin rate. We couldn't talk
00:23:58
about hit probability or catch probability. And And the ability to to literally visualize bodies, balls, and bats in
00:24:07
motion has changed so much not only about the way we talk about sports but even about the way the players play the
00:24:13
way they train, the way they think about their own their own their own their own mechanics,
00:24:18
the way they think about their own talent, the way they think about their own um uh uh capacity to develop and
00:24:23
improve the way they sort of self-project their their own their own development. So, I think there are
00:24:28
technological things that are really new. I think mostly I'm struck by the ones having to do with video capture not
00:24:34
the ones having to do with conversation. All right, so we're going to go to Eric,
00:24:36
then Cade, then Shane. So, Eric. Hey David, I just want to ask you, um let's
00:24:40
think of all the major sports. I would make the argument, but I'd love to hear
00:24:44
from your historical and thought perspective based on your book. Let's imagine you can only consume the
00:24:51
game. So, you can watch the baseball game. You you watch the football game. You can
00:24:56
watch the basketball game, you can watch the hockey game, whether in person or on
00:25:00
TV, but I don't allow you to talk about the game. I would argue that baseball would suffer
00:25:07
the most. Maybe because it's become ingrained in us to talk about the game. Maybe it's become ingrained in us to
00:25:15
compare the history of the game. Like, "Wow, that's something I've never seen
00:25:19
before in the history of the game." So, to me, would you agree with the premise
00:25:24
that the narrative around baseball is just as important as the game itself? Yes, I agree with absolutely everything
00:25:33
that that you said. You did lump together two things that are interesting to me to separate, which is
00:25:39
being live at the game and watching it. In part because both of those actually can involve talking about the game. But
00:25:47
the game broadcast, whether on radio or TV, are very much about talking about about the game.
00:25:54
And so, um yeah, so what you say is true. I think what you say would be even more striking if you
00:26:00
if you in the hypothetical you weren't allowed to to watch it on. I I happen to
00:26:04
think that the sport that is most improved by live attendance is hockey. Um by by
00:26:11
by by a long shot. Um I think basketball is very very legible on on on television much as it is live.
00:26:20
Baseball is somewhat less legible in both cases and does require a lot more more talking.
00:26:26
Hockey is barely legible uh TV and oddly it becomes more legible when you actually you appreciate things
00:26:33
about it. I was also referring David to the fact that if Audie and I are at the game, part of
00:26:40
the consumption utility is not the announcer, it's us talking to each other much more so than at other sporting
00:26:46
events. Not that we wouldn't talk to each other. And maybe it's because of
00:26:50
the cadence of baseball. Maybe it's because of the history of baseball. It's
00:26:53
just that we're not going to miss anything in that 15 seconds where the pitcher So, we got plenty of time to
00:26:58
talk. And we do. Yeah, I I I agree though. I mean, people have made some similar arguments about
00:27:04
football. Uh you know, it it George Will's famous comment that football is this
00:27:09
uh a classic American sport because it's spectacular bursts of violence uh punctuated by committee meetings. Uh so,
00:27:17
that the committee meeting in football is also an opportunity for fans to talk about, you know, what what what the play
00:27:24
ought to be. So, I'm not sure if it's unique to baseball's cadence, but
00:27:28
baseball's cadence contributes to it for sure. Yeah. Cadence. David, uh I enjoy I read a few chapters
00:27:35
and enjoyed them immensely and I learned a lot. And some things I wouldn't have expected to know, like the
00:27:41
Chadwick history and scorekeeping and his philosophy and all that is phenomenal and fascinating.
00:27:47
But I feel like I should have known the Curt Flood story. I did I didn't know
00:27:51
the Curt Flood story. This This was the beginning of free agency, I gather, probably across all sports, but this is
00:27:57
the according to David, the St. Louis Cardinals outfielder who got traded to the Philadelphia Phillies. Here comes
00:28:02
Philly's rolling this thing. And sued MLB cuz he didn't want to go. And uh lost it went all the way to
00:28:08
Supreme Court, loses. But becomes kind of a hero and it it prods the union movement, etc. etc.
00:28:15
Anyway, this is a long way of saying I learned some things that I think I should have known and learned some
00:28:19
things that I would never have expected myself to know, but found fascinating. I want to ask you, I think history does
00:28:24
provide a great deal of signal in what's going to happen in the future and we're
00:28:30
obviously should be paying attention to history for that reason. The chapter on capital and labor, union
00:28:36
negotiations and how how much difference Marvin Miller made when he came in and ran the players association and how that
00:28:43
you make this great point, you know, Shohei makes this huge salary now. That's due to what a great player he is,
00:28:48
but it's also generations of union bargaining that got him there. This is all a set up to ask, given your read of
00:28:56
history, what should we anticipate about this next round of bargaining, which feels like it's headed for a massive
00:29:02
stoppage? And we can say we can argue Shane and I argued some of the show last week about whether this would be good or
00:29:07
bad, but I'm just curious. What does history tell us is likely to happen union
00:29:13
owner negotiations next year? I don't really have much much insight in this. I'm just going to just a
00:29:19
disappointing answer. I mean, that the structure of the problem remains the same, which is, you know, the players
00:29:25
are the only ones that fans really want to see. They don't want to see uh uh
00:29:29
replacements. The players are uniquely talented, but nothing that they do has value uh not just without opponents, but
00:29:38
without the structure of a league. Uh the struc- I I have a chapter in here about associations and leagues. I think
00:29:43
that the league is is one of like the sort of mysterious and often underrated features of modern spectator sports. The
00:29:49
league is what gives meaning to competition between two changing entities over time. And a lot of the
00:29:56
appetite that people have uh for spectator sports has to do with the fact that they see uh continuity. So, the
00:30:02
league has that power. Um uh and then the players obviously have have have have have the power that
00:30:09
talented um entertainers al- always do, especially in competitive context. So, a
00:30:14
little different from like the movies or a theater, where you know, you could have an idea that someone is uniquely
00:30:19
talented at at singing or dancing or or or or or at at telling jokes, but because sports pit people against each
00:30:26
other, uh the demand for the very best uh on the part of fans is is a little bit more
00:30:31
non-negotiable. So, that's what the the players have a lot of power. Now, the
00:30:35
tricky thing about the the current um uh labor conflict in Major League Baseball
00:30:40
is that the the uh the collective bargaining agreement is in place has worked out very very well
00:30:47
for the players. Not for minor leaguers, but for for Major League players worked out very
00:30:52
well. It's worked out very well. It's argued in this book in part because
00:30:55
Marvin Miller was very good at his job. And once certain victories were in place, they're very hard.
00:31:02
The threat to baseball for Major League Baseball in this century is not never been the strike. It's it's been the
00:31:08
lockout, right? It's it's it's it's owners who are dissatisfied. So, I can't
00:31:13
predict what they're going to do. I can't also predict, um, you know, how how the the the change in
00:31:19
leadership on the union side, which I think probably is going to strengthen the union's position,
00:31:26
is is is going to play out. I can't predict how the recent flurry of long-term contracts to very young
00:31:33
players. I mean, I think just this morning that the Mariners broke the record for the
00:31:39
the the largest contract to a guy who has not had his Major League debut in Colt Emerson. So, there are a lot of
00:31:46
things that are happening right now that more knowledgeable people can weigh in how how they think it's it's likely to
00:31:53
to to affect the landscape, but the structure of the problem is the same. It's been the same, you know, for since
00:31:59
the mid-19th century. And the power the particular power of the MLB Players Association is what it
00:32:07
is, and that's what the owners are up against. It's a strong union with a good
00:32:11
collective bargaining agreement in place. The owners would like to disrupt that to control their costs, but they
00:32:17
can't all get on the same page and and and collude and and stop shelling out these high contracts. So, so, you
00:32:25
know, I'm I'm I'm I guess I'm rooting for the Players Association, and I'm also,
00:32:31
slightly bullish on their prospects of of either avoiding or or or or weathering a work stoppage,
00:32:39
but that may just be the fan in me talking rather than this story. Just so you know, Kate, one of the most since as
00:32:44
you know and our listeners know I go to Cooperstown every year for the induction
00:32:47
ceremony. I was there when Marvin Miller, he was deceased but his family spoke and so did many players on his
00:32:54
behalf about the impact he when he was inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame. One of the more memorable and impactful
00:33:00
speeches about his impact of anybody in the last last 50 years in baseball. Let's tag him with what David said,
00:33:09
which is US Steel Workers Union negotiators. So they he was a prominent guy in industry, he stepped over to
00:33:15
baseball, brought a lot of expertise over to baseball. I'm sorry to interrupt
00:33:18
you, David. No, no, I'm just saying that that that that Cooperstown has done a pretty good job
00:33:22
at canonizing both Miller and and Curt Flood. And if Flood's a more complicated story
00:33:29
because I mean, he lost the case, he lost his career. His life kind of unraveled.
00:33:36
It's not a happy story. But he isn't he isn't he's now a saint, right?
00:33:44
I mean, you know, if he didn't have the same he didn't have the same numbers as
00:33:48
Clemente, I bet some teams would retire it, right? It's funny because Bruce Meyer, who's
00:33:53
now the head of the players union, when he was here at Penn he he told me that Flood lost his suit. I didn't even know
00:33:57
that. I thought he had won but in your book explained that he lost the suit but I guess won the war essentially. Well,
00:34:04
yeah, he he his side won the war but I don't know His side won the war but he
00:34:07
personally did not. Uh we only have a couple minutes left. Shane, do you have time you have a short question?
00:34:12
>> kind of quick one I guess. I I really enjoyed the kind of description of some
00:34:16
of the experimentation in the 19th century that went into the modern game we see. And you had one line where you
00:34:21
talked about the current distance between the pitcher and hitter. And you say say which some mythologists cite as
00:34:29
the key to to game's perfection. And I I that line by the way. But But can you
00:34:34
maybe talk a little bit more about cuz I never really thought I mean obviously distant you know, can can you talk a
00:34:39
little bit about what people mean when they say baseball's perfect with that
00:34:43
with regards to that? I mean the idea is that if you move the the the the the rubber, you know, 4 in
00:34:50
or 6 I'd say 6 in that's the big number at 6 in closer or to to the plate or or
00:34:55
or further, it would make all the difference in the world. There even are movies and and and and and novels that
00:35:01
that that that take up that that that experiment. >> is that kind of a is that a thought experiment or did they
00:35:09
actually like in the 1880s like like is it such a narrow band that if we did move it 6 in it would just completely
00:35:15
throw it off? >> was it was it was moved frequently in in in in the 19th century and the mound was
00:35:21
raised and and lowered famously after the 1968 season. So I mean baseball's always tinkering
00:35:29
with with size of the base in in in in in and always tinkering with the rules to try to regulate the balance between
00:35:39
hitter and pitcher which at least for let's say 130 140 years has been the dominant focus of tension in a baseball
00:35:47
game. And that's the part that sort of sort of resembles boxing or chess, right? There there there there is there
00:35:53
is the showdown. And and the idea that that there's something magical built into the game
00:35:58
from the from the beginning that that that maintained that balance I think is wrong
00:36:04
and I mean the most obvious evidence for that is that is that leagues are constantly trying to trying
00:36:11
to to figure out what to do to preserve that balance. Yeah, I get I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
00:36:16
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
00:36:18
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
00:36:21
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
00:36:23
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
00:36:26
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
00:36:28
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I if we somehow were able to make a minor
00:36:32
perturbation that got that close to say 0.5 or something like that, would that be That would be a Maybe maybe it's
00:36:40
that, you know, you can't actually vary it so continuously. There's a real
00:36:43
inflection point. You move it 12 like 12 in closer and it goes down to zero or goes up to one. So, it could be that
00:36:49
there's just that a very narrow range that can happen. I just kind of wonder
00:36:53
how much kind of perfection different very ways of perfection we have to play with in terms of that distance.
00:36:59
>> Well, I know attention we we tend to focus a lot on on on the the the mound
00:37:04
to to plate relationship, but but uh over time, you know, offense offense has has risen or success rate of
00:37:11
batters has also risen and fallen frequently. And most commonly leagues turn to the to the
00:37:18
equipment, to the ball, or the bat in an attempt to regulate that balance. More recently they Major League Baseball
00:37:26
has done other things. I mean, defensive positioning uh the shift, that's a big one, right? That
00:37:33
That That That That That has a huge impact or it ought to. I think we will see over over over a long period of time
00:37:40
what it amounts to. But that ought to have a huge impact on batter success rate. As to some of the other rule
00:37:46
changes that we've had, you know, I don't expect the automatic ball strike system to to have a big
00:37:53
effect on on regular in the balance since since both sides have have I think sort of fairly equal access to that to
00:38:02
that challenge. But But yeah, baseball's always trying to do things to regulate
00:38:05
that balance. And then and mystifying the the mound to plate relationship is is I think not a good way to think about
00:38:11
it because yeah. We We've come to the to the end of the interview. It's It was It
00:38:15
was spectacular, but I want to end it in actually sort of an interesting way. Each of you are going to ask a single
00:38:20
I'm going to ask a question of all of you. You one word answer, yes or no. ABS? Yes or no?
00:38:26
So, why don't we go around, Shane, yes or no? Yes. Yes. Cade? Yes. Eric? Definitely yes.
00:38:36
And I'm a yes, and I'll I'll end with with David, what's your yes or no?
00:38:39
>> Okay, let me just pivot the question. The question is ABS in its current form.
00:38:43
Yeah, in its Well, in its current form, yes or no. Yes. Excellent. Um it cuz it's the biggest
00:38:49
change that we've had in baseball in in in probably years, and it's and it's on
00:38:52
everybody's minds right now. We can devote an entire show for that, but I know we have to let you go, and we have
00:38:57
the second half of our show uh to to come right after the break. But thank you very much, It's nice to meet
00:39:02
all of you, and it's great Audie to see you, and and happy holidays and happy
00:39:07
early baseball season to everyone who celebrate. And uh may your Cardinals Happy Summer Worker's Day. Yes, and may
00:39:12
may your Cardinals do very well, and uh of course not at the expense of my Yankees, but um but I hope at the
00:39:17
expense of the Dodgers. That's definitely And then maybe maybe in the in the more immediate term at the
00:39:22
expense of the Mets. At the expense of the Mets, yes. That'd be fun. That I figure that's something that should
00:39:27
please both the Philly fans and the Yankee fans among us. All right, so thank you David, and please uh stick
00:39:32
around and we'll join us we'll return right after the break. Welcome back.
00:39:36
Welcome back to Wharton Moneyball. Welcome to the second half of this week's show. We had a long interview
00:39:41
actually first half, long interview with David Hinken, former classmate of Audie
00:39:44
Weiners many lifetime ago essentially. Cal professor, new book on the history of baseball. He's a historian, proper
00:39:51
historian, writes proper historical books, and wrote a proper historical book about baseball. Very cool, you
00:39:56
learn something any chapter seems to me uh fun, interesting. Fellas, what about live sports? Um y'all are one
00:40:06
weekend to the Major League Baseball season. If you missed Audie's reciting Giamatti's quote about baseball,
00:40:14
probably worth going back and listening to the top of the show. That was a money
00:40:18
quote, and this is a good time of year to do it. Okay, one week into the season. I think I'm about to get 10
00:40:23
minutes of all ABS all the time, but I want to get reactions to what's going on around baseball.
00:40:31
Well, I certainly can jump in, although we can devote a little time to NCAA March Madness. Um So, yeah, baseball's
00:40:38
been great. Um Dodgers, Yankees starting off strong. Um but it's ABS all the
00:40:43
time. I was surprised in the first game of the Yankees game, the first ABS challenge didn't happen till late in the
00:40:48
game. Um they were and I I think they're trying to work out what's the optimal
00:40:52
time to do it. Um and what the rules are. So, there's going to be lots of discussion about that. In fact, we
00:40:56
analysts should probably try to get in on the game. Uh what are what are the best ways to handle this? Clearly, the
00:41:01
catcher is calling it when it's way out. When it's they're just when there's a
00:41:05
bad mistake, they're just they're just tapping their heads immediately. Uh the
00:41:08
question is when the batter should be doing it. I've seen lots of bad calls.
00:41:11
The batters are not protesting, and I've seen good ones that the batters are are
00:41:15
protesting and getting and not They're getting it wrong less. Getting uh getting it wrong more often, the
00:41:20
batters. So, I've got I got I've got I've got I've got I've got a few uh
00:41:23
statistical breakdowns if you want on the first week. It's like So, so 54% success rate on challenges overall.
00:41:30
When the catcher the catcher had the have the highest rate of overturn. So, they are they're successful 64% of the
00:41:36
time on challenges. Batters are successful only 42% of the time on challenges. Pitchers
00:41:44
are only successful 40% of the time, but that's only happened like five times.
00:41:47
So, like the vast majority of challenges have come either from the batter or the
00:41:50
catcher. And the catcher's saying The catchers, not surprisingly, are better
00:41:54
at it. They've got the better view on it. But, I would also expect these numbers to get better over time, right?
00:42:00
Like players will learn, catchers will learn. I would think that ideally ideally the umpires would also learn
00:42:06
though, right, guys? Yeah, you know what? Well, are they I kind of are they past learning at this point?
00:42:11
>> Hold on a second. I mean, let's let's just stand back. One of the things
00:42:13
that's I've watched a whole bunch of these overturns get get overturned by a
00:42:16
hair's breadth, which I'm really curious about cuz I know the accuracy of the
00:42:20
system is point what is 1/6 of an inch. So, 0.135. That is not very much, right?
00:42:27
So, uh No, I said that wrong. 0.16 >> 0.166, yeah. So, that's not very much.
00:42:32
And in other words, I've seen them get overturned calls, but I don't blame the
00:42:36
the umpires for those. We Our minds recall the bad ones, right? >> Well, yeah, that's really what the
00:42:42
system is for. I mean, if if you wanted to kind of modify the system, place like
00:42:47
a 1/6-in barrier like extra border around the around the like strike zone, feel free. I watched CB
00:42:55
Bucknor miss like 20 calls in the Red Sox game. There was only They ran out of challenges in that one. There was eight
00:43:02
total challenges >> How does the rule work? If you make a challenge and it's successful,
00:43:06
>> limit of two wrong ones. Two wrong, but you can have an unlimited Yeah, so so so the Red Sox challenge had
00:43:12
eight total challenges and six successful ones. But then there was like another six they could have challenged
00:43:17
after that if they had, you know, I mean again, yeah. I mean, CB Bucknor should I don't shame not having a job, but
00:43:24
anyway. Shane brought up something interesting. So, let me let me follow the logic of what you said, which I
00:43:29
happen to agree with. Let's pretend for the moment that umpires get better. So,
00:43:34
umpires now prune off the really bad calls. So, the only ones that are challenged are now the close ones, which
00:43:40
means the success rate may not actually go up Yeah. because the only ones that'll be challenged are the knife-edge
00:43:47
ones that already talked about. So, you could imagine the long-run equilibrium is that things do not improve.
00:43:55
Yeah, and then like it could be just kind of guesswork where where you know, it's around 50% because we're like we're
00:44:00
all the only kind of challenged ones are on the like very much the margins where
00:44:04
literally >> that story does depend on the umpires continuing to get better,
00:44:08
>> And I think it's an interesting >> there are there are but Shane, hold on.
00:44:10
Shane, set aside like you know um pillorying these guys and just ask what's the limit of performance at this
00:44:17
task. And and they are already doing quite well. The The average of them is already
00:44:22
doing quite well. They've learned Whatever they came up with you know, stat Statcast or whatever the name of the
00:44:28
system is a few years ago and they started training on these things. You can see the increase in the improvement
00:44:33
right away. I'm curious. What's the limit of performance? I mean the perfection is probably unachievable.
00:44:39
They're still human beings. And so there's going to be some limit to what
00:44:42
they can do. Also >> Yeah, I know. What you also might find, Shane, is you might find uh an
00:44:47
asymmetry. And what I mean by that is well, you'll just like you'll get um
00:44:52
reads on players like don't pitch high and outside to this player. This umpire
00:44:57
is more prone to errors in this zone versus that zone. And those laws, as you know, Shane, are out there already. But
00:45:03
now we'll have that measure. I mean, this will be available. It's already
00:45:07
measured and already it's gotten so much I mean so much better. I mean, I know we
00:45:11
Yeah, and we ought to and we ought to I think they should replace the whole thing with the system. No, no, but what
00:45:15
I mean what I meant, Kate, was just if I'm a batter and I'm thinking about
00:45:19
challenging, I may be more likely to challenge one low from this umpire than high based on the data that I know.
00:45:26
That's a possibility. Yeah, but I will point out, speaking of um Aaron Judge
00:45:31
had was a tremendous beneficiary. He was uh he had a strike I'm not sure it was
00:45:34
strike three, but it was definitely a strike uh and it was 2 in beneath his knee. And anyone who's been watching
00:45:41
Judge for years knows that he has been get he's been consistently >> crushed by that pitch. But crushed by
00:45:46
that call. And he then hit a home run in that at bat. We're expecting big things
00:45:50
from from that strike zone change. Altuve four hits yesterday uh two homers >> Well, I I I I was hearing I was reading
00:45:57
I mean, he's right. So, he's going to be a benefit from the the system because
00:46:00
the system is is now tied to height. Now, I mean, the umpires have always been that way, but the the ABS system is
00:46:06
tied to height and he's probably been getting all kinds of bad calls for years. So, hold on. Let's just say let's
00:46:12
let's let's emphasize this. We talked about it a couple of weeks ago in advance. We we called out those two guys
00:46:17
in particular because they're oddly shaped in different directions as probably getting disproportionate
00:46:23
benefit of the new system and you're reporting that already in week one it seems like that's happening. That's
00:46:28
interesting. >> I I I I heard a rumor that a bunch of players are are are kind of that have
00:46:32
have edited their their height. Like the like players height players heights have
00:46:36
systematically gone down across Major League Baseball because if they have a lower height they can get the high
00:46:42
strike is no longer a high strike. But interestingly judges judges concern was the low strike because he had the
00:46:47
opposite problem. Are you expecting a higher league batting average this year because players do not have to now worry
00:46:55
as much about the ball outside the zone being called a strike cuz they can always challenge it. Therefore, I can be
00:47:01
a more selective hitter. I mean, you could make an argument that this should lead to higher batting average. No
00:47:06
matter what the effect size is going to be. I don't know. I I I mean, we're
00:47:11
concentrating on the two hitters that are benefiting from the system. There's
00:47:13
got to be other hitters that are are neutral to it and the and the negatives will will Yeah, I mean, I I mean the
00:47:19
part I I think like probably at their level I would guess you know, the one thing I think is is is
00:47:26
one of the positives of this is that you know, even though you know, the height thing is kind of weird and whatever.
00:47:30
It's it's a consistent strike zone the entire game. It's the same strike zone
00:47:35
regardless of umpire. I don't know I don't know if that kind of within game
00:47:39
consistency necessarily argues for the hitters or the pitchers, but like in my mind maybe I'm just too hitter focused.
00:47:45
Like if I'm a hitter, I feel like I would be helped by that in game consistency. I agree. The other thing is
00:47:51
that we've already established well, one week's of stats one week of stats has
00:47:54
established that catchers are are better at this than hitters. And so the defensive team is better than the
00:48:00
offensive team. And so they're going to asymmetrically benefit. So that that
00:48:04
pushes the opposite direction, Eric. That says the catchers proficiency at this is going to help the pitchers. And
00:48:10
so that would lean against What's interesting is will there be a decision made by many teams to not let
00:48:17
um the really because you remember you cost your your team on the on the defensive side if your offense makes a
00:48:21
mistake. So if you let your batters screw up, which is they're doing at a substantially higher rate than the
00:48:27
catchers, they cost their team a challenge that a catcher on the other side will not now have, right?
00:48:33
>> Right. So why would you be I mean you could just say no hitters, you can't
00:48:37
But then they're definitely going to >> ones. I mean you still want the hitter
00:48:41
to have the challenge for obvious ones, but yeah, I I get that. >> obvious, like really tough ones.
00:48:45
>> Maybe a culture will develop where the cat you know, the hitter has to be very
00:48:49
sure if they're going to call Okay, we have to have a incentive alignment, have a fine jar. You know,
00:48:55
you put it wrong, you got to throw a 20 into the old bucket when you get back into the locker room after the game.
00:49:01
Come on, you guys decision making. Isn't there some incentive alignment? Wait,
00:49:04
come on. >> I I don't know what the right incentive is for a guy who makes $60 million a
00:49:08
year. This this Get creative Get creative on that one. You know, they're They're huge competitors, so
00:49:14
they want to win more than anything else. So That's right. All right, let's
00:49:18
let's talk a little bit about um NCAA's. Both the men and the women are into the
00:49:22
Final Fours. We'll see that this coming weekend. Um we saw an all-timer of a
00:49:28
buzzer beater in the Yukon-Duke game, an all-timer. Um you know, we get those every few years. We get buzzer beaters
00:49:36
all the time, but that was way up there. Um any what reactions to the Final Four,
00:49:40
guys? I'm Here's one thing I'm meant to do. I'm meant to This dead gummit, we
00:49:44
need to do this. We've talked in past years about the total seeds of the Final
00:49:49
Four being kind of an interesting sufficient statistic on how chalky a tournament was. We've got a low total
00:49:56
this time around. I think it's two ones, a two and a three, so it's not minimum,
00:50:00
but it's low. And I'd like to know where that falls in the distribution since the
00:50:04
beginning of the 64-team tournament. >> Wasn't it four ones last year? Last year
00:50:08
was low. >> that distribution over time as well. >> with the last two. Like, what's the
00:50:13
probability of two years in a row coming in as extreme as these two are? And we already know the thing has shifted, but
00:50:19
this is like a real clear way to see the shift. >> Mhm. Um and historically, we talk about
00:50:23
this with brackets, you know, you're too inclined to pick you know, you got you don't want too
00:50:28
chalky a final four, you don't want a crazy final four, but they there's a
00:50:31
nice distribution, and we've seen two years in a row of very tight low distribution. Well, I'm going to uh
00:50:37
point out that I've already won one bracket, a small family pool, with Arizona. It doesn't matter, I mean, cuz
00:50:43
I'm no matter what happens now, I win it. And the other one was a bigger one, not
00:50:47
huge, with our with our undergraduates in our seminar. If Connecticut, I'm the only one who
00:50:51
picked Connecticut to win, cuz I figured with a bigger pool, you got to have a little bit of of non-chalk at the end
00:50:57
to have a chance. Um and that is I mean, I've made so many mistakes, so the only way I'll win this
00:51:02
is if my non-chalky uh guess goes >> Keep on going. And uh so it's interesting um how you
00:51:09
play those two things against each other depending on the size of the pool that you're in. Small pools, you want to go
00:51:14
chalk. Bigger pools, you got to take gambles. Because I'm never going to beat
00:51:17
them if Arizona wins, there are too many people who picked Arizona, too many people picked Michigan, uh the Dukes are
00:51:23
all out, and they're just going to get decided on that little noisy path to the
00:51:27
final four um that is almost almost completely unpredictable. Yeah, what's interesting, Audie, from the Yukon
00:51:32
perspective is, let's be honest, right now, they're on the weaker side of that
00:51:37
draw. By every metric, Michigan and Arizona are the two best teams left, and they're playing each other. So, you
00:51:44
know, right now, if this is one of those interesting calculations. I haven't
00:51:47
looked at the betting odds. You could make an easy argument Yukon should be favored to win the title here
00:51:54
because they've got a higher probability to win this game despite the fact that
00:51:59
they're going to be an underdog in the other game. They've got to be the
00:52:01
favorite at this point. Well, what are the odds? We should get that. That's a
00:52:05
good I don't think they're even favored over Illinois. Right? Just straight up.
00:52:09
>> Yeah, they may not be. Illinois has been on a good run. >> the lowest odds because Illinois is
00:52:12
considered better. Oh, well, then okay. Well, then they wouldn't be. Um but and
00:52:16
they're both underdogs against each other. I mean, the So, Arizona and Michigan have substantially higher odds
00:52:23
jointly than the other bracket, the Illinois-Yukon. Substantially higher. Almost three to one, I think. Uh in fact
00:52:30
>> let's take it let's take a quick note just on on on tournaments and tournament
00:52:34
design and distribution of talent. In the wi- on the women's side, we have a
00:52:38
minimum number of seeds in the Final Four. We all four >> four teams as last year. Is it the same
00:52:43
four? Okay, so it's South Carolina and Yukon on one side, Texas-UCLA on the other side. All of these teams were
00:52:49
number one seeds. And I don't I didn't I don't remember the final score of all
00:52:54
the Elite Eight games, but I know a couple of them were pushing 30-40 points margin.
00:52:58
>> they were minimum might have been like 20. It's extraordinary. So, it's interesting, isn't it, that in the
00:53:05
NIL era where we see so much leveling out in some other sports, the women's basketball, which has always had this
00:53:12
right tail that seems separate from the rest of the distribution, doesn't seem
00:53:15
any smaller than it used to be. In fact, it might be it might be even further skewed. Is that possible? Wouldn't the
00:53:22
argument be that there's a, you know, thinner distribution of talent in the women's game, and therefore there's not
00:53:29
enough talent to support, you know, eight, 10, 12, 15 great teams, while in the men's game there is, and that's why,
00:53:37
you know, in some cases >> Yeah. So, so yeah, now now interact that with NIL. So, I
00:53:42
agree that's always been the case. Now, interact that with NIL, what do you get?
00:53:46
The NIL gives us the power to consolidate the men's sport to a ways that would the women get just by the
00:53:53
uh um by by you know having the sport now. >> Interesting, right? So, that's
00:53:57
interesting. So, you're saying the men's game starts looking more like >> of consolidate the power on the power
00:54:01
and the the more diverse power that we have in the perhaps in the men's sport
00:54:05
in general in a small a small number of teams just like the women's naturally
00:54:09
does. Well, but okay, we don't we argued in the last week or two about we don't know whether that
00:54:15
right tail the far right tail of the men's game is going to benefit. We know
00:54:18
that the mid-majors have been sucked up into a deeper field of the majors, but we don't know if the right tail
00:54:24
continues to suck from the deeper field. But, here's the but what I'm saying is I
00:54:28
hadn't thought about this until this conversation. Is it possible because of
00:54:31
the thinness of the talent in the women's game that NIL actually makes concentration
00:54:37
worse? It was already concentrated, but it could be that if you interact NIL with a
00:54:44
thin talent pool, you get an even more skewed right tail. It's it's entirely possible that we
00:54:51
could be >> possible. Um wow, okay. Well, that that is taking place in Phoenix on Friday and Monday. I
00:55:00
was a No, no, Friday Sunday. Friday Sunday the men's will play Saturday Monday as they usually do do,
00:55:05
of course. All right, guys, why don't we wrap it there? We've uh covered a little
00:55:10
bit of the spring sports. We've got next time around we're going to be heading
00:55:14
into Masters week, I think. We've got Masters, one of the most um one of the
00:55:18
premier spring sports, and we're warming into basketball and hockey playoffs. So,
00:55:23
lots to cover coming up. Um I want to note I don't know how explicit we've
00:55:28
been about this, but Audi has lined up guests over the last few weeks and it's
00:55:32
been a heck of a run. Audi Wyner, major props for programming help. I don't know
00:55:38
what I'm going to do with the next time around cuz I I I went go whole hog this
00:55:41
time. Well, well, I'm looking forward to what you do. All right, for the whole team here,
00:55:47
Audie Wyner, Shane Jensen, Eric Bradlow, big thanks to Deion Simpkins making this
00:55:52
thing happen, to our whole team out there, our producer Marissa Renda, the big boss Dia Patel, D Patel. Thank you
00:56:00
guys for listening. Come back and join us next time. Between now and then, enjoy your sports.