Speaker 1: For the people.
Speaker 2: Perfect way to label this one, and he often does
Speaker 2: articles that are for the people because the people get involved.
Speaker 2: Stephen Nesbitt with us right now from the Athletic put
Speaker 2: out an article to the people saying what rule changes
Speaker 2: should MLB make and it was a mailbag to analyze
Speaker 2: the suggestions. Stephen, great to chat with you, and I
Speaker 2: want to go right to the one that it listed,
Speaker 2: like the most response, the most fire. There's always that
Speaker 2: one right from your article. So what was the one
Speaker 2: that we should lead this conversation with.
Speaker 1: I mean there's like the realistic one and then there's
Speaker 1: the unrealistic one. Do you have a favorite?
Speaker 2: Oh, aj, what do you want?
Speaker 3: Well, it's just the realistic one first, because the unrealistic
Speaker 3: ones something so crazy, like a pitch cla yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah. The realistic ones had to do with the pictures,
Speaker 1: and that always gets a lot of people going because
Speaker 1: it does feel like sixty feet six inches in some
Speaker 1: sort of gospel, but in reality it was just a distance.
Speaker 1: They moved the pictures mound two in nineteen eighty sorry,
Speaker 1: eighteen ninety three or something like that. They lowered the
Speaker 1: mound in nineteen sixty eight, as we know, after the
Speaker 1: year of the picture, and there was evidence that that
Speaker 1: worked right eras went up, batting averages went up, And
Speaker 1: the problem with that is that it wasn't really a
Speaker 1: clean body of evidence, I guess because they also changed
Speaker 1: the strike zone at the same time the walks went up.
Speaker 1: It was a more friendly environment for hitters in many
Speaker 1: different ways. So lowering the mound I think would help
Speaker 1: hitters certainly, but I don't think it is like really
Speaker 1: the one sort of end all, be all rule change
Speaker 1: that would fix the hitting environment completely. The other thing
Speaker 1: that sort of the other side of that coin is
Speaker 1: to move the mountain back, which was discussed at length
Speaker 1: a couple of years ago. It was tested in the
Speaker 1: Atlantic League moved it back one foot in the Atlantic League.
Speaker 1: There have been talks about having it two feet back.
Speaker 1: A little bit further back you'd be at the true
Speaker 1: sort of geometric center of the infield diamond, but they
Speaker 1: really didn't see positive improvement in the Atlantic League experiment. Now,
Speaker 1: the problem there also is that guys can't throw strikes,
Speaker 1: and so this just made it worse. You had more
Speaker 1: movement from that far back, So if you couldn't already
Speaker 1: already couln't land your sinker or your slider or you're
Speaker 1: sweeper in the strike zone, then you have even tougher
Speaker 1: time from a couple feet back. So they've tested a
Speaker 1: number of different things, and it does feel like you
Speaker 1: guys can attest to this too, Like if you're going
Speaker 1: to make one change to the game that isn't going
Speaker 1: to radically change how the game looks, then moving the
Speaker 1: mound down further or moving it back farther certainly seems
Speaker 1: like a relatively minor fix from a just an aesthetic standpoint,
Speaker 1: and it could have a positive effect on the game.
Speaker 1: It also will make movement harder, and I'm just gonna
Speaker 1: keep guessing that pictures will continue throwing hard and harder
Speaker 1: no matter how far back you asked them to throw from.
Speaker 1: So I don't think that problem is going away, that
Speaker 1: the average velocity continues to climb. As far as more
Speaker 1: of an absurd thing that drew some attention, There is
Speaker 1: so much focus still on the extra innings rule to
Speaker 1: add a runner at second base, that one was probably
Speaker 1: two to one comments versus any other topic when I
Speaker 1: ask for people's favorite rule changes. Now, if you ask
Speaker 1: baseball fans, what's one rule do you want to change.
Speaker 1: Almost every single response is undoing a rule change that
Speaker 1: already happened. That's just sort of the way we are.
Speaker 1: We can't sort of getting our creative hats on and
Speaker 1: come up with something super zany. Like one person did
Speaker 1: on here, which I enjoyed, was why not make the
Speaker 1: infield dirt smaller to prevent them from backing up? Okay,
Speaker 1: that's interesting, that's new to me. But extra innings rule
Speaker 1: is not particularly popular. That Rob Manford has added a
Speaker 1: runner at second base, the Manford Runner or the ghost runner.
Speaker 1: Some people say incorrectly, that's a wuffle ball thing, that's
Speaker 1: really not a person on second base. But it's not
Speaker 1: popular to have that there. And yet it's successfully getting
Speaker 1: games over quickly. It's saving arms, it's saving bullpens, And
Speaker 1: so I understand the desire to have it look more
Speaker 1: like baseball. And for all the changes baseball has made,
Speaker 1: the League Office has made to try to make baseball
Speaker 1: look like baseball, right, don't let third basement lineup in
Speaker 1: shallow right field, ban the shift, A lot of things
Speaker 1: they want to make baseball look like baseball used to be.
Speaker 1: And yet that's one thing with the extra endings, like no, No,
Speaker 1: we just got to get the games over with. If
Speaker 1: we're going to restrict how many pitchers can be on
Speaker 1: a roster, then we want to not be burning guys
Speaker 1: in the extra innings. We don't want anymore's position players pitching,
Speaker 1: which is another rule change we can discuss, and so
Speaker 1: extra innings the one I went with. People had all
Speaker 1: sorts of you know, their version of their favorite extra
Speaker 1: inning plan. One of them, the simple one is play
Speaker 1: the tenth inning normally. Maybe you start a run around
Speaker 1: first in the eleventh, run around second in the twelfth.
Speaker 1: There are a lot of different ways you could do it.
Speaker 1: This person had it sort of invented a showdown where
Speaker 1: the home team, I believe it was just gets to
Speaker 1: pick if they hit or if they pitch. There are
Speaker 1: three outs to end the whole thing. You put your
Speaker 1: picture out there, you put your five hitters with run
Speaker 1: I think it was a run around first was the idea.
Speaker 1: And if the pitcher gets three outs before a run scores,
Speaker 1: then his team win. If he gives up a run,
Speaker 1: his team was as simple as that, so it would
Speaker 1: get the game over quickly. Do I think it is
Speaker 1: going to happen? No? Do I think it's like as
Speaker 1: Mickey Mouse is, what's happening now? Pretty close.
Speaker 4: We love our dog Bella, who splays out in the
Speaker 4: open sun on our floor like she's an underwear model,
Speaker 4: and that's why we love her so much.
Speaker 5: To scratch her belly. She's a cutie, that Bella.
Speaker 2: And a quick message from today's sponsor, the ASPCA Pet
Speaker 2: Health Insurance Program. If you're frantically looking for what to
Speaker 2: do with your pup when they have an issue, the
Speaker 2: program offers customizable accident and illness plans, making it easier
Speaker 2: to get your pet the care they need. When you
Speaker 2: enroll in an ASPC Pet Health Insurance plan, you could
Speaker 2: get a twenty five dollars Amazon gift card. It's a
Speaker 2: little treat for you while you're doing something great for
Speaker 2: your pet. To explore coverage, visit ASPCA Pet Insurance dot
Speaker 2: com slash foul that's ASPCA Pet Insurance dot com slash foul.
Speaker 2: Eligibility restrictions apply. Visit ASPCA Pet Insurance dot com slash
Speaker 2: Amazon terms for more info. This is a paid advertisement.
Speaker 2: Insurance is underwritten by either Independence American Insurance Company or
Speaker 2: United States Fire Insurance Company and produced by PTZ Insurance
Speaker 2: Agency Limited. The ASPCA is not an insurance and is
Speaker 2: not engaged in the business of insurance.
Speaker 3: Steven a couple of things. First of all, lower the
Speaker 3: mound all you want. Places like Toronto and other places,
Speaker 3: they'll figure out a way to make the mound still
Speaker 3: higher than it should. Because if you've ever sit on
Speaker 3: the rogersoner Round mound, it's like you're on top of
Speaker 3: Mount Everest and you're looking down.
Speaker 5: I mean, hoseell.
Speaker 3: I remember you go up there and you stand up
Speaker 3: there next to your picture, and I always had to
Speaker 3: make sure I was at the top because otherwise I
Speaker 3: was like three feet shorter than the picture. And I'm like,
Speaker 3: this guy's not that tall. Why am I hurting my
Speaker 3: neck looking up at him? So there will still be
Speaker 3: people that skirt the rules. Also moving the picture, the
Speaker 3: mound back or whatever. How about we just learned to
Speaker 3: make strikeouts matter. If you want to cut down strikeouts,
Speaker 3: make the matter when guys get paid. That'll cut that down.
Speaker 3: And then the last one, I actually liked the Manford
Speaker 3: I wasn't a big Manford runner Manford man guy until
Speaker 3: now that I broadcast. I think it's great because it
Speaker 3: gets games over and we don't have these eighteen inning
Speaker 3: slog fests for I'm fine for it going back to
Speaker 3: the regular way in the postseason. And then the last
Speaker 3: thing you said was one of the dumbest things I've
Speaker 3: ever heard in my life. Because let's say your best
Speaker 3: picture is your closer and use them in the ninth inning. Well,
Speaker 3: guess what teams aren't gonna want to risk bringing in
Speaker 3: a starter or another guy to pitch that.
Speaker 5: So that that was a terrible idea.
Speaker 3: Now, if you want to say, do the home run
Speaker 3: derby or something like that, okay, I could deal with
Speaker 3: that a little more. But the pictures and the injuries.
Speaker 3: We already have too many injuries to pitchers.
Speaker 5: So I don't know. Just my two cents.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, first of I definitely did not grade these
Speaker 1: on realisticness, and I'm not necessarily condoning many of the suggestions.
Speaker 1: I want a creativity more than anything. But if aj,
Speaker 1: if I give you this, we ended the all start
Speaker 1: the game last year with the swing off, and it
Speaker 1: was fun, it was interesting. Would it make you mounts
Speaker 1: to borrow that phrase again? Totally? Would you if you're
Speaker 1: going to go to a sort of non baseball version
Speaker 1: of extra innings. If we say you could play the
Speaker 1: extra rings regularly, or you can have this middle tier,
Speaker 1: which is what they're doing now, of putting a runner
Speaker 1: on base in scaring position, or if you're going to
Speaker 1: go sort of zany to make it an entertainment thing
Speaker 1: to make people really want to stick around almost root
Speaker 1: for extra innings. Would you ever go there where you
Speaker 1: want to swing off, where you want a quasi version
Speaker 1: of baseball, where it's three outs to end the whole thing.
Speaker 3: I'd rather have the swing off what It'd be more exciting.
Speaker 3: It'd be over quicker than the three out thing. I
Speaker 3: think a swing off. The problem with the swing off
Speaker 3: is teams aren't built the same, so your three best
Speaker 3: hitters for the swing off might not be equal on
Speaker 3: every team. Now on the All Star Game, they were
Speaker 3: supposed to be. But it would have been so much
Speaker 3: cooler if it was Judge and Otani and the rest
Speaker 3: of the starters that had already jumped on their private
Speaker 3: planes and flown home. Yeah, but I think it'd be cool.
Speaker 3: It won't happen. I actually, I think the best umpermise
Speaker 3: of what you have in order to keep the game
Speaker 3: shorter and to keep him from going twenty innings is
Speaker 3: what we have now most games. I mean, I mean, heck,
Speaker 3: we I don't think we've had a game go to
Speaker 3: the was it past the fourteenth inning since this rule
Speaker 3: came into play, So I mean, I think that's all right.
Speaker 3: I'mbout one hundred percent sure, But I think that's the
Speaker 3: longest one I've seen. I mean, I remember going eighteen
Speaker 3: nineteen innings, not regularly, but every once in a while
Speaker 3: it would jump up on You can't have that in
Speaker 3: today's game. There's too many injuries already, and we're trying
Speaker 3: to keep people's attention. So let's keep people's attention, all right.
Speaker 4: So the runner at second is called the zombie runner
Speaker 4: because he died and came back to life, the resurrected runner,
Speaker 4: whatever it is. It's not a ghost runner. Definitely not
Speaker 4: the Manford Runner. That sounds weird because Manford never played,
Speaker 4: so that's not going to happen to me.
Speaker 5: Why are all the rules Why are all.
Speaker 4: The rules to increase offense when the or that not?
Speaker 4: Why are the rules that are like gimmicked about to
Speaker 4: increase offense?
Speaker 5: Why is that?
Speaker 4: Because is that more fun than watching a pitcher dominate?
Speaker 4: Is that more fun than or is it because of
Speaker 4: the fact that some of your rules that you came
Speaker 4: up with here, could we have, you know, more injuries
Speaker 4: to pitchers. If we have less injuries to pitchers, then
Speaker 4: maybe we can have just a better product completely out
Speaker 4: on the field.
Speaker 1: Pretty hard to reinvent the product though, And so what
Speaker 1: the league is left with interesting here, if you guys agree,
Speaker 1: is if the league is going to force something, it
Speaker 1: can only force certain things. It can't force contact, it
Speaker 1: can't necessarily force the strike out right down. It can
Speaker 1: really encourage it. But who's to say that they make
Speaker 1: any of these changes that are recommended by fans here
Speaker 1: that are intended to bring strikeout rates down and intended
Speaker 1: to put the ball and play more, bring like stuff
Speaker 1: and velocities down. I guess PEG and how dominant they
Speaker 1: are in today's game, the game would continue to evolve
Speaker 1: in the way that incentivizes the players. Then the clubs,
Speaker 1: like teams won't be like you know what, the league
Speaker 1: really feels like. It feels like they're really trying to
Speaker 1: get some more runs across the board. Interest fans, they
Speaker 1: don't like three true outcomes, but TIEF are still going
Speaker 1: to operate the way they always do. We have a
Speaker 1: set amount of money to score the most amount of
Speaker 1: runs and allow the fewest amount of runs possible to
Speaker 1: win the most games, and so they're going to play
Speaker 1: the most efficient brand of baseball in the league doesn't
Speaker 1: necessarily want that. So our rule change. Is that intended
Speaker 1: to fix something that's broken in the game from a
Speaker 1: competitive standpoint, or are they intended to fix something that's
Speaker 1: sort of broken from a fan perspective? Was the shift
Speaker 1: moved out of the game because it was ruining gameplay? No,
Speaker 1: the shift that moved out of the game because it
Speaker 1: looked bad and people didn't like the way that it
Speaker 1: looked compared to the game they're used to. And so
Speaker 1: you walk through each rule change, and I would challenge
Speaker 1: most people to think through the rule change and think
Speaker 1: who was this or actually endings rule was not for fans.
Speaker 1: Fans kind of dug the game that won on eighteen innings.
Speaker 1: Even as a beat writer when I was missing like
Speaker 1: a date night with my wife, it was kind of
Speaker 1: fun to sit through those and see I remember like
Speaker 1: a pitcher playing left field randomly and pictures having to
Speaker 1: hit the in extra innings in the National League game
Speaker 1: that zany stuff was cool. It's like awesome to write
Speaker 1: about afterward too. And so this was done for fans
Speaker 1: because fans they wanted to sorry. This was done for
Speaker 1: teams because they wanted predictability. And when is the game
Speaker 1: getting over? And do I need to make four roster
Speaker 1: moves before tomorrow's game? And it's rare. I think that
Speaker 1: Major League Baseball is going to make rule changes for
Speaker 1: teams and for players. I think most of the rule
Speaker 1: changers are going to be what does the fan want,
Speaker 1: which the league has said is the driving force of
Speaker 1: what the league wants to do.
Speaker 4: How does baseball compare to other leagues changing their rules?
Speaker 4: I followed Baseball way more, but the other major leagues,
Speaker 4: you know, obviously, big rule change in hockey was the
Speaker 4: blue line. You know, they don't have the center line anymore,
Speaker 4: so you couldn't go. So there was changes in there
Speaker 4: to aid more open offense. Football has changed a ton,
Speaker 4: but mostly around safety. How is Major League Baseball done
Speaker 4: compared to the other four leagues?
Speaker 1: It was interesting. We wrote a story a couple of
Speaker 1: weeks back with Mike Borkanov, who is our one of
Speaker 1: our basketball writers, and it was sort of the story
Speaker 1: was like all the juice that baseball has right now
Speaker 1: compared to basketball, and it was the premise was like
Speaker 1: his baseball sort of reovertaking basketball as the numbers two
Speaker 1: sport in the US, and that it's interesting. It's fascinating
Speaker 1: for me, as someone who's covered baseball for a long time,
Speaker 1: for like the prevailing narrative to be that baseball is
Speaker 1: doing things right. For a long time, that was not it.
Speaker 1: That was not the conversation that was being had around baseball.
Speaker 1: And yet the conversation and now is, Hey, these rule
Speaker 1: changes came in and they've really interested a lot of people.
Speaker 1: There are some stars at the top of the game.
Speaker 1: There are some interesting teams. You may not like the Dodgers,
Speaker 1: but I think they're certainly interesting, and so compared to basketball,
Speaker 1: I think basketball people look in like this is a
Speaker 1: game that needs some innovation. This is a game that
Speaker 1: is running to little defense, happening way too much scoring,
Speaker 1: way too much three point like efficiency. Same conversation, and
Speaker 1: they haven't yet made big sweeping rule changes to fix
Speaker 1: a lot of that. Hockey has done a lot of
Speaker 1: messing around that. You mentioned the blue line of too
Speaker 1: I pass all that sort of stuff, but they've been
Speaker 1: I think most of their messing around has been in
Speaker 1: like overtime and extra extra any the shootout at the
Speaker 1: end of it. Football field like changes a bunch of
Speaker 1: things every year, but is it so consequential that it
Speaker 1: truly changes the nature of the competition.
Speaker 5: Not really.
Speaker 1: It's like tickoffs and things like that that you mentioned
Speaker 1: as far as safety. So Baseball, I think these rule
Speaker 1: changes were pretty radical once you consider the landscape of
Speaker 1: like these leagues. How often do they change something as
Speaker 1: big as the pace of play? You know, we've talked
Speaker 1: about the shot clock or the play clock. That's a
Speaker 1: long time ago that these were implemented, And so baseball,
Speaker 1: it does feel like, is the sort of most recent
Speaker 1: sport to make big changes like that. And so I
Speaker 1: don't know that the premise. I think of our previous story,
Speaker 1: which was about the infield shift and sort of the
Speaker 1: lack of impact that has had on truly bringing back
Speaker 1: base hits, which is pretty predictable. But I think fans
Speaker 1: so other way. Other ways they thought that the game
Speaker 1: was sort of some parts of the game we're fixed
Speaker 1: in some ways by these rule changes. That conversation around
Speaker 1: the game still is that they've they're going in the
Speaker 1: right track. So I don't think that necessarily the league
Speaker 1: is open to these massive, sweeping, real changes that we're
Speaker 1: that we're suggesting in this story.
Speaker 3: But by the way, you mentioned that the player, the
Speaker 3: rule changes aren't made for the players. Tommy has his
Speaker 3: own rule. They made him rule change for him, right,
Speaker 3: Should we.
Speaker 5: Take that.
Speaker 3: A little bit to allow other guys to get to
Speaker 3: that possibility?
Speaker 1: That's the rule change in the scheme of But no,
Speaker 1: it's not.
Speaker 5: No, I disagree. That's a huge rule.
Speaker 3: Hold on, that's a advantage for the Dodgers.
Speaker 1: It isn't. It is an advantage, but it's not a
Speaker 1: thing that fans care about one iota. Right, there is
Speaker 1: a roster construction rule. That's that's all it is, right,
Speaker 1: So it's not something like you would never you would
Speaker 1: never ask fans like, hey, how do you guys feel
Speaker 1: about this roster construction rule? Or when this guy can
Speaker 1: come on? Whatever. They don't care enough for that to
Speaker 1: be a consequential le chain, is what I was trying
Speaker 1: to say.
Speaker 5: Yeah, OK, that's.
Speaker 3: Fair, it's pretty conch it's pretty qut consequential when it
Speaker 3: comes to.
Speaker 4: Sure fans gripe. Fans gripe about their payroll. They're not
Speaker 4: going to be like, oh they got an extra pitcher.
Speaker 4: No actual like players and other teams complain about it.
Speaker 5: More.
Speaker 2: Thans are pretty smart. Yeah, fans are pretty smart. I mean,
Speaker 2: I remember since I was a kid hating September call
Speaker 2: ups because I'd be like, why are the games all
Speaker 2: of a sudden? I have all these extra players and
Speaker 2: they take an extra.
Speaker 4: I don't say that. You don't say that September callups
Speaker 4: made some people's careers.
Speaker 2: Okay, Scott, it was hurting my fan experience.
Speaker 5: Eric, it was hurting your fantasy team, That's what it
Speaker 5: was doing.
Speaker 2: Soine, I'm fine with an extra catcher, nine more pitchers. No,
Speaker 2: I'm good. Okay, we can bring up an extra catcher compromise, Steven,
Speaker 2: great article, though, thanks for joining us to go over
Speaker 2: all of it. I encourage everyone to check it out
Speaker 2: in the Athletic. It's posted. There's a lot more in there.
Speaker 2: Appreciate you man, good catching up.
Speaker 1: Thanks guys.
Speaker 2: Some wireless plans can get a little bit crazy, a
Speaker 2: little bit off the charts. Expensive Mint Mobile can get
Speaker 2: you started with three months of premium wireless for fifteen
Speaker 2: bucks a month.
Speaker 5: Pretty good.
Speaker 3: I like that the way gas prices are going up, Scott,
Speaker 3: We've got to keep more mobile plan down and mint
Speaker 3: mobile is your location to keep your mobile plan down,
Speaker 3: can add family members. You can do all that for
Speaker 3: just fifteen bucks a month.
Speaker 2: That's less than a drink in many cities these days
Speaker 2: if you like bougie drinks. All plans come with high
Speaker 2: speed data and unlimited talk and text delivered on the
Speaker 2: nation's largest five G network. If you like your money,
Speaker 2: mint mobile is for you. Shot plans at mobile dot
Speaker 2: com slash territory. That's mintmobile dot com slash territory. Upfront
Speaker 2: payment of forty five dollars for three month five gigabyte
Speaker 2: plan required equivalent to fifteen bucks a month. New customer
Speaker 2: offer for first three months only, then full price plan
Speaker 2: options available. Taxes and fees extra. See mint mobile for details.
Speaker 6: The best nickname in the minor leagues is now the
Speaker 6: best nickname in the Major League. Just Nixon Garcia. The
Speaker 6: password is up with the Pirates. He came up because
Speaker 6: Ryan O'Hearn has gone on the injured list and this
Speaker 6: is a newfound thing for the Pirates. Hey, a back
Speaker 6: goes down and you have the depth to replace with
Speaker 6: someone who should give you a capable fill in. Garcia
Speaker 6: was acquired in the off season four situations like this.
Speaker 6: He is triple a depth who should in the long
Speaker 6: run be potentially an everyday regular in a corner outflot spot.
Speaker 6: I would not expect him right now to provide the
Speaker 6: same thump that Ryan O'Hearn was before his injury, but
Speaker 6: at the same time, he's also going to be significantly
Speaker 6: better defensively in right field, so there's gonna be a
Speaker 6: little bit of a trade off here. Garcia had an
Speaker 6: injury of his own back tightness that kind of sidelined
Speaker 6: him a little bit. In April. He's back and full speed.
Speaker 6: Now there's I would say solid power here, but he
Speaker 6: does a really good job of getting to it and
Speaker 6: there's not a ton of swing a miss for a
Speaker 6: guy who does have the ability to kind of go
Speaker 6: on a home run bingch solid replacement. I don't expect
Speaker 6: him to be, all of a sudden a game changer
Speaker 6: for the Pirates, but hey, the Pirates have for years
Speaker 6: struggle to fill in when they have an injury. This
Speaker 6: is an example of a guy who should be able
Speaker 6: to come up and if not miss a beat, he
Speaker 6: should be able to provide a very capable replacement for
Speaker 6: Ryan Hurr.
Speaker 2: That's Baseball America's JJ Cooper on the pass word. I
Speaker 2: think that was the key for me. Aj. Yeah, he's
Speaker 2: not necessarily going to be the star spark right from
Speaker 2: the jump for a Pirates team that actually needs a
Speaker 2: little jump start. Again, but they used to replace their
Speaker 2: injuries with guys that you know would be instantly to
Speaker 2: the bottom of the lineup and maybe not ready for
Speaker 2: the big leagues. This is helpful depth.
Speaker 3: Yeah, but that's not Losing a Hearn is a big
Speaker 3: deal for the Pirates. I mean he was better hitters,
Speaker 3: so that that's a big deal. We just need to
Speaker 3: be replacement level. This is where I love War because
Speaker 3: War is like Ryan O'Hearn, Well, who's replacing Ryan o'harn.
Speaker 3: It was like when Mike Trout, who's replacing Mike Trout.
Speaker 3: I mean, yeah, of course he's not going to be
Speaker 3: as good well the pass word, I'm not even trying
Speaker 3: to say his name, but yeah, you can be somewhat
Speaker 3: serviceable until Hearn comes back. That would be a big
Speaker 3: win for the Pirates. And yes, this is something nice
Speaker 3: that the Pirates now have the ability to do is
Speaker 3: have major League ready people in the minor leagues that
Speaker 3: can come up and actually help them.
Speaker 2: Red Sox Yeah, Jose Tinson, Okay, you'll handle it from.
Speaker 5: The Red Sox. And this is where the Pirates have
Speaker 5: to he has to step up.
Speaker 4: He has to be able to be somebody that not
Speaker 4: only contributes offensively, because then they're just going backwards when
Speaker 4: they have injuries. They have injuries like that's that's the
Speaker 4: reality of it. And they played some tough games this
Speaker 4: weekend against the Phillies team that was hot.
Speaker 2: Hey, we asked the Knights and simple question on Twitter
Speaker 2: over the weekend, and let's do rapid fire reactions to
Speaker 2: responses from fans. We said, how would you critique your
Speaker 2: favorite team up to this point in the season. We
Speaker 2: used a photo of a Mets fan with a brown
Speaker 2: paper bag over their head, but probably about a third
Speaker 2: of the league has fans with brown paper bags over
Speaker 2: their head at games sometimes throughout the year. So let's
Speaker 2: roll it. Let's just read and react here for the
Speaker 2: next few minutes and see what we have. And I've
Speaker 2: been told we're going to start with a photo. That
Speaker 2: photo is somebody happy and sad? Eric replied, the Reds
Speaker 2: so far? What was the wind streak for them? Does
Speaker 2: anyone remember? Was it nine? It is at least eight?
Speaker 4: They were rolling, Yeah, they weren't. Then they hit the
Speaker 4: Then they hit the Cubs. Chicago's a place right now.
Speaker 4: Up and down, up and down, op and down.
Speaker 2: Mm hmm. Next up, Tigers. Dana lifelong Tigers fan, not
Speaker 2: gonna lie this year is making me crazy. Lots of injuries,
Speaker 2: no excuse to the poor play, too many nights.
Speaker 5: There you go. That sums it up right there. That's perfect.
Speaker 3: Poor play, bad, bad fundamentals, whatever it is. They've they've
Speaker 3: had everything, injuries, everything, they've they've bad hitting, bad pitching.
Speaker 5: They've kind of seen it all in and motown this
Speaker 5: year since the second half of last year. Like let's
Speaker 5: this could be a scary trend for this team.
Speaker 2: Next up, William bleeping destroyed any hope or belief in
Speaker 2: this team with letting Pete and Edwin walk without giving
Speaker 2: all out max offers to keep them. Oh he was
Speaker 2: talking about Stearns. A Mets fan here not happy with
Speaker 2: the decisions made by the team this offseason. A lot
Speaker 2: of people were questioning it and now they're questioning it
Speaker 2: even more. Actually to play to that. We didn't cover
Speaker 2: this earlier, but Jorge Polanco seems to have one of
Speaker 2: those issues that's not going to go away this year.
Speaker 2: They just keep getting the news that spills out as
Speaker 2: guys are hurt that it's going to be worse. So
Speaker 2: it's up to the Baby Mets. Maybe the Baby Mets
Speaker 2: have it. Got to see the prospect shine.
Speaker 5: I'll see a tough division though, with two solid teams.
Speaker 2: Yes, Braves are great. Phillies look really freaking good right
Speaker 2: now too. Next up, Oh, another photo. It's Mark contributing
Speaker 2: a dumpster fire and writing red Sox. That would be
Speaker 2: their offense.
Speaker 5: Ajay, Yeah, did you see? I was on Twitter today
Speaker 5: and I saw Veritec's wife wrote something. It was interesting.
Speaker 5: If you guys haven't seen it, go will or go
Speaker 5: on Twitter. It was something like.
Speaker 3: Something about Jason, why Jason wasn't instill in the organization
Speaker 3: and she wrote something along the lines of smartest guy
Speaker 3: in the room in quote, smartest guy in the world
Speaker 3: or smartest guy in the game in quotes, knows what
Speaker 3: he's doing or something like that. I forget exactly what
Speaker 3: she how she worded it, but it was it was interesting.
Speaker 3: So yeah, they've already fired their manager, and yeah it's
Speaker 3: been interesting in Boston. Dumpster fire would be a mild
Speaker 3: way to put it.
Speaker 2: Mm hmm. Well played, and I will go look for
Speaker 2: that tweet after this one. More raise? Yes, let's finish
Speaker 2: on a fun note. Raise thirty and fifteen, and they're
Speaker 2: showing wedding crashers partying, So what.
Speaker 5: Does that mean?
Speaker 2: Is that?
Speaker 4: Is that more what that fan truly thinks? It is
Speaker 4: like wedding crashers, like just oh, we're gonna enjoy it
Speaker 4: whileunteer because I don't know if it's gonna continue, or
Speaker 4: does that mean like, hey, we celebrate it because we're
Speaker 4: celebrating everything.
Speaker 2: You go to something bougie and you crash it with
Speaker 2: something that is rugged, and that is the raise.
Speaker 5: Do they keep it? Do they keep it going?
Speaker 4: That's whether their pitching as healthy.
Speaker 2: Yes, yeah, they're not gonna win one hundred twenty games,
Speaker 2: but can they win ninety two games?
Speaker 5: Sure?
Speaker 4: But where did this pitching? Where does pitching come from?
Speaker 4: They find pitching everywhere, so why couldn't they just keep
Speaker 4: finding pitching?
Speaker 5: Hurt them? Send the next one in