Effectively Wild Episode 1950: Well, We Tried

by
January 3, 2023

EWFI
Ben Lindbergh and Meg Rowley banter about Hall of Famer Jim Palmer‘s endorsement of Netflix series Emily in Paris, a questionable Cubs-related baseball scene in the EiP series premiere, a Royals rookie record and a follow-up on Harold Ramírez’s hair, Ben’s latest former major leaguer Facebook friend recommendations, another way in which baseball is unique (or at least highly unusual) among major sports, defenders “taking away” hits from batters, the plateau in MLB’s percentage of international players, alternative baseball halls of fame, the Tigers trying and failing to sign Jean Segura, “purchasing” players vs. trading players, and more, plus a Past Blast from 1950.

Audio intro: Smoking Popes, “Letter to Emily”
Audio outro: Silver Jews, “Strange Victory, Strange Defeat”

Link to Palmer’s tweet
Link to second Palmer tweet
Link to Roeper tweet
Link to sports bar scene
Link to Gallagher tweet
Link to Bote homer
Link to Hudgens/Tucker info
Link to 25 Days of Bingemas
Link to SATC scene
Link to EW SATC mention
Link to KY3 on Royals rookies
Link to AP on Royals rookies
Link to story on Royals rookie duo
Link to team rookie homers
Link to Stathead on rookie homers
Link to Ramírez hair story
Link to preorder The New Ballgame
Link to Russell’s first book
Link to info on courtesy runners
Link to Retrosheet courtesy runners
Link to EW on baseball uniqueness
Link to info on international players
Link to HoF ballot tracker
Link to latest Rolen projection
Link to Hall of Stats
Link to Darowski EW episode
Link to Shrine of the Eternals
Link to Hall of Merit
Link to O.J. HoF info
Link to character clause info
Link to Passan on the character clause
Link to Ben’s 2021 ballot explanation
Link to Ben’s earlier ballot mention
Link to MLBTR on the Tigers
Link to 1950 story source
Link to SABR on psychologists
Link to Jacob Pomrenke’s website
Link to Jacob Pomrenke on Twitter

 Sponsor Us on Patreon
 Facebook Group
 Twitter Account
 EW Subreddit
 Effectively Wild Wiki
 iTunes Feed (Please rate and review us!)
 Get Our Merch!
 Email Us: podcast@fangraphs.com

Podcast (effectively-wild): Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: RSS





 

1 Comment
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
tomerafan
1 year ago

The hand-wringing over the character clause continues to trouble me for reasons that we still don’t discuss.

The character of a person is not determined by their single worst or best act. “Character” indicates behavior over time, including how that person responds to their best and worst moments, and not just the best and worst moments themselves.

A-Rod, for me, seems lacking in character in a baseball sense. His “bad behavior” was repeated, and at times without remorse or understanding, and included lies and coverup that are further suggestive of bad character.

Roger Clemens, for me, seems lacking in character given repeated issues from PED’s to his alleged relationship with an underage girl – issues for which has never shown remorse or understanding.

But plenty of people are being hit with the “character clause” discussion who haven’t shown a lack of character. And that’s troubling. Because we’re trying to strike people for one infraction, perhaps in their worst moment – their BEHAVIOR in one instance rather than their CHARACTER.

0