Matt Gelb

I'm good.

Thanks.

It's funny you mentioned that right off the top, newly available data on baseball savant.

I remember asking their team, this was before COVID now, probably something like 2019.

I just noticed how often Garrett Cole was getting what I was calling swing-unders when at that time he was spider-tacking it up with the Astros.

I remember emailing those guys over there and asking baseball savant, do you guys happen to track swing-unders by chance?

And lo and behold, seven years later,

I'm going to be able to get my answer.

So it's very cool that those guys can do what those guys do.

And obviously, most everything in baseball can be quantified.

And so long as we know how to contextualize it, well, you make your audience a lot smarter.

Yeah, well, the answer to your question is fairly simple.

When you played Division II college baseball and you slugged .350, which I did, it was fairly clear and obvious to me that I was not going to be a big league slugger.

And as it turns out, all the knowledge that I collected growing up and playing ball up through college

obviously is super translatable, but what I'd like to think I have learned to do at ESPN over the last 10, 11 years, as well as anyone in this industry, is use numbers to tell stories.

It's not my objective, it's not, or at least it shouldn't be the objective of those who do what I do, to demonstrate or prove how smart I am.

That doesn't do the listener or the consumer any good.

The whole point here is let's make complicated things and distill them and synthesize them in such a way

that most anyone can understand them, regardless of your, for lack of a better term, reading level, for lack of a better term, your fluency.

If you like baseball a little bit or a lot, if you know a ton about stats or very little bit, what I'd like to be able to do every time I talk ball is, no matter where you are on that spectrum, make you just a little bit smarter.