FanGraphs Weekly Mailbag: August 29, 2026
Three months ago, when MLB and the MLB Players Association made their first proposals for baseball’s next collective bargaining agreement, I wrote about how these offers were designed to be rejected, and that they would continue to be until January at the earliest. For that reason, I haven’t devoted much space in these mailbags to the various rounds of bargaining that have taken place this summer. We have real baseball games to cover.
That said, I couldn’t help but laugh when I saw the most drastic change in MLB’s latest proposal: In the offer sent to the union on Thursday, the league proposed instituting two free agent signing periods during the offseason, the first stretching from the first day of the Winter Meetings until December 21, and the second beginning the first week of February. The first period of no free agent signings would allow teams to trade players and re-sign their own free agents, while the second would be a complete blackout of big league transactions. So why is that funny? Well, because the league made clear that the players wouldn’t be able to get these free agent signing periods unless they agreed to a salary cap, as if the transaction limitations would be enough of a sweetener to get the players to give in. The union doesn’t want free agent signing periods because they would give ownership greater leverage during negotiations, potentially resulting in unfavorable contracts. Bruce Meyer, the interim executive director of the MLBPA, called the proposal “unserious.” We’ve got a long way to go.
If you want to read more about the latest proposal, you should check out Michael Baumann’s writeup from Friday. Otherwise, let’s get on to this week’s mailbag. We’ll be answering your questions about Julio Rodríguez’s hitting, the greatest World Series ever, and what would happen if home runs became automatic triples. But first, I’d like to remind you that this mailbag is exclusive to FanGraphs Members. If you aren’t yet a Member and would like to keep reading, you can sign up for a Membership here. It’s the best way to both experience the site and support our staff, and it comes with a bunch of other great benefits. Also, if you’d like to ask a question for an upcoming mailbag, send me an email at mailbag@fangraphs.com.
Matt is the associate editor of FanGraphs. Previously, he was the baseball editor at Sports Illustrated. His work has appeared in The New York Times, Men’s Health, Baseball Prospectus, and Lindy’s Sports Magazine. Follow him on Twitter @ByMattMartell and Blue Sky @mattmartell.bsky.social.
I have come to the conclusion that Julio Rodriguez is this generation’s Vada Pinson/Cesar Cedeno/ Ruben Sierra (at the plate, Julio is WAY better than Sierra defensively and on the bases).
Common theme- Guys that excelled very young, but, had shaky plate discipline & everyone thought “Once they figure that out, they’ll be unstoppable”..yet, they never really figured it out & all had their best seasons very young & while they had long successful careers, the overall theme was one of unmet potential & “What could have been?”
Hope I’m wrong.
Yes! He’ll be 26 before the end of the calendar year – practically washed up – and hasn’t had an elite season since at least ‘25
I’m aware of that.
Look at Pinson & Cedeno’s careers- They, too, were elite from age 21-25, but, then never reached those heights again. Sierra was elite offensively in 2-3 of the years in that age range,
Pinson/Cedeno had very good, long careers. Both cleared 50 WAR. It’s just that a large chunk of that WAR & their best seasons were in their age 21-25 range. & due to that, they were considered “disappointing” for much of the 2nd half of their careers.
Trust me, I’m not saying Julio’s a bust or comparing him to Milt Cuyler or something. He’s going to have a long career. I just think there is a chance he follows the same career trajectory.
The WS question is interesting & one I think is tough to answer with solely metrics.
The storylines are what is missing from the metrics & yes, big stars & big name teams probably make a difference. Red Sox trying to break the curse in 1975 or 86 (vs the Mets, who were a famous team with lots of big names), the back drop of 9/11 in 2001 Yankees vs the Unit/Schilling Diamondbacks, 2016- Cubs & Indians trying to end long WS droughts/curses & like 2025 extra innings in game 7.
1991 was just great theatre/baseball though 2002 had the Giants/Barry Bonds angle. The crazy game 6 helps 1985, 2002 & 2011.
I do think 1991 is probably the best of my lifetime, along with 1975,1985,1986, 2001, 2002, 2011, 2016.
I’m sure each series is remembered by that teams fan bases for the big moments, superstars and unheralded players who left their mark.
I can’t fairly judge any of the series that involved the Red Sox, but the best of the other series I’ve seen are 1991, 2001, and 2025 but for slightly different reasons. 1991 and 2001 had huge performances by all time great players but also notable goofs from Lonnie smith in 1991 and Byung-hyun Kim in 2001.
I think 2025 was the best played games I’ve ever seen. I don’t know how you’d measure this, but it seemed like every hitter had great at bats, pitchers with great stuff were always hitting their spots, and the defense was great all around. That’s what I’ll remember from 2025 – the consistent excellent play from both teams.
Obviously the best WS was 2005 and I am not at all biased in this.
You are partially joking, but 2005 was a fantastic series and probably the best series to end in a sweep, in terms of drama and competitiveness of the games.
I think 1975, 2001 and 1991 are all in the top tier (at least in the LCS era). 1960, 1955, 1924 and 1912 are excellent options from earlier eras.
if we’re including the backdrop of 9/11 while accounting for storylines, we really must include the earthquake and the chaos that injected into the ’89 series.
While that was certainly a big event, the WS itself was a dud. Oakland sweep by scores of:
5-0
5-1
13-7 (with SF scoring 4 runs in the 9th down 13-3)
9-6 (after Oakland jumped up 8-0)
Disaster & human drama? Yep. Compelling baseball? No.
2001 has both. 4 1-run games, Game 7 win off the best closer ever.
One of my more quixotic hopes for baseball is for the league to move most of the fences about 30 or 40 feet back. Let’s see all these athletic outfielders trying to cover ground. Let’s see more aggressive baserunning and close plays at 3rd and at home. And let’s save the relaxed celebratory trot as a reward for when someone crushes it 450 ft.
You must like watching the Rockies home games.
If it wasn’t murder on players’ knees, I would love big parks plus the old turf. Bring back the 80s!
Well, yes.
But another one of my favorite things in baseball, right up there with triples and diving catches, is vicious breaking balls. Especially if they’re in the zone. And you don’t get much of that in Denver.
I want Coors, or even slightly bigger, but at sea level.
Scott Podsednik’s walk-off was in Game 2, not Game 1.
Yep. Game 2. I was there after leaving the Bears game vs. the Ravens early. Great Chicago sports day.
You know who had their best seasons at age 22 and 23? Cal Ripken. Until he discovered weightlifting and had an out of nowhere comparable season at age 30.
Despite the painful streakiness, Julio’s actually maintained greater year-to-year offensive performance and consistency than Cal did. (So far.) Baseball is weird.
(Reply fail)
I’m biased, but hard to see how a series could ever top El Birdos/Rangers (2011). Don’t recall ever watching a baseball game (the pivotal/insane Game 6) and audibly yelping like that.
I’m biased as well and think that is the worst World Series that has ever happened
Jay, Game 4 of the (historically overlooked, IMO, given the teams involved and the nature of the series) 1972 World Series did in fact feature a walk-off win for the A’s, and a rather extraordinary one at that, as they got 4 straight singles from 3 pinch-hitters and eventual MVP Gene Tenace to steal a game from down 2-1 in the ninth that in the end was the difference in the series. For the record, in order: Gonzalo Marquez, Tenace, Don Mincher and finally Angel Mangual driving in Tenace FTW. Unlikely & worth remembering.
Final score of that game was 3-2.
Indeed, one of three 3-2 results in the Series, all won by Oakland, in games 1, 4 and 7. The other 1-run results: 2-1, Oakland, Game 2; 1-0, Reds, Game 3; and 5-4, Reds, Game 5 (a game in which Cincinnati scored a run each in the 8th and 9th innings to come back for the win from down 4-3 to fend off the end of the Series). The Reds then won Game 6 8-1 back home in Cincinnati before Oakland finally prevailed in Game 7 and wrapped up the first of their 3 consecutive championships. The result was considered an upset at the time (just ask Pete Rose), all the more so because Oakland played the whole Series without Reggie Jackson, who’d been injured stealing home in the decisive ALCS game.
sounds like julio is getting outwitted?
maybe he should focus on studying the pitchers more so he can properly guess what pitch is coming and where it’ll be?
It’s the 1991 World Series for me. Though 2025 and 2001 come close. Re: 1991, Gene Larkin says that every day of his life since then someone has mentioned his walkoff hit. He never gets tired of it.
Is there anywhere on Fangraphs where you can see team combined pitching and hitting WAR?
Yes
i have been drawn to the use of “nerf” vs “debuff”. they feel like different words with different uses to me, but i wish i could put into words why i feel that way.
They’re similar but they *are* different. In video games, something being “nerfed” means the developers permanently weakened a particular thing, while a debuff is a temporary weakening of something in that particular session of play.
“Debuff” is more of a RPG (regardless of actual medium) thing, in my experience — I cast a spell to make the monsters weaker or slower temporarily. The most common term would be a “status effect”.
“Nerfed” is a game design mechanism to attempt to balance play by making an overpowered card or effect or strategy weaker. Which is precisely what changing a out-of-park HR to auto-triple would be.
Interestingly, “buffed” is the most common opposite for both of these terms — you can “buff” your party with a defensive spell, or a game designer can “buff” a particular mechanic to make it more useful.
granted, damage multipliers (above or below 1) or other status effects (chip damage, ability lockout, etc) are surely a thing in other games like shooters etc
Yep. I see buff/debuff/nerf a lot in roguelites, too.
THANK YOU. temporary session debuff vs permanent systemic nerf. that’s a really great distinction and it matches the pattern that i have followed without knowing it
they should make outfield walls out of the same stuff as an anechoic chamber. reduce injury and make caroms impossible to field
“In other words, the value of a ball over the fence would be about a quarter less valuable than it is now.”
Wait…you’re saying a three bag hit is worth 25% less than a four bag hit? That’s what all the advanced math is telling us?
Ah, yes, this tired nonsense. How could someone ever possibly have aesthetic preferences different than yours? This GenX/Millenial nostalgia for the Astroturf era is just as stupid as Boomer nostalgia for “Golden Age” baseball.
Username checks out.
Given its weird exclusion from Ken Burns’ famous documentary series, apparently Jay Jaffe isn’t the only person who skipped the 1990 World Series.
Mmm