Transcript of Bet Your Bipster | Hour 1 (feat. David Samson) New

You are listening to the Dan Le Batard Show in partnership with the DraftKings Sports app, now live in all 50 states.

This episode of the Dan Le Batard Show is presented by DraftKings Sports. DraftKings, the crown is yours.

A couple of months ago, we played some fairly unprecedented propaganda from Major League Baseball where they had fans saying, we obviously need a salary cap and we're headed toward a work stoppage. And it's the first sort of salvos in trying to win the public relations game. But to answer your question, Mike, from the first hour, the remaining payrolls of the teams in the playoffs: the Guardians are 29th in the sport, the Rays are 28th, the White Sox are 27th, the Brewers are 19th, and the Dodgers are first. So do we need a salary cap?

It's going to be an interesting narrative heading into the World Series with the impending work stoppage.

So, and the Dodgers win with Miguel Rojas, and, and, you know, you got this nonsense of, of, you know, your 9th hitter is winning the game for you yesterday.

Well, let's ask David if Major League Baseball kind of finds this storyline headed into the Fall Classic favorable.

What are your thoughts here, David Sampson, of Nothing Personal? A number of baseball things I want to discuss with you today.

It's no problem that the Rays and the Guardians and the White Sox and the Brewers are in because that's never been what baseball has said is why we need a salary cap, because small market teams can't make the playoffs or can't win a division. The reason why they want a salary cap is that it's the best way to get the most teams the most hope, the most consistently year after year. That's why you need a salary cap. You'll never legislate against the Jets, like just pure stupidity where a team can't win in a salary cap situation. In theory, you should be able to win. And that's really not the case with every team in baseball.

Yeah, like by far the most important thing is a front office that's going to make good decisions.

But he's saying it's not the case with every team in baseball. The White Sox got John losing 119 games. Like, what are we talking about? That it can happen with any team in baseball.

Like, It—

every team in baseball does have hope if the one that just lost 119 games can be sitting here still vying for the World Series.

Yes, but legislating a salary cap and trying to even things out even more can make it more of a chance that more teams are involved.

And you have to look at a larger sample size. You don't just look at one year. Can you imagine if in the NFL you had a team, let's say the Chiefs, and their payroll was $450 million, and then you had a team like the Packers, which is a small market, in theory, low revenue area if they didn't share everything in the NFL. And the Packers had a payroll of $90 million. I think you'd agree that that's not the league that anyone is hoping for. And that's why you do a salary floor and a salary cap. That's the theory that the owners have right now. And that's why they don't really care about this particular year, just like they didn't say the Dodgers ruined baseball when they're winning all the time. or that the Guardians are ruining their plan by making it, you know, to the playoffs, or the Rays or Brewers. So it really— one year sample size is not enough to change the philosophy.

Okay, but I just heard Draymond Green talking about everything with the salary cap and Kawhi Leonard and saying, well, obviously if players can get more, why should we have a salary cap? Well, you collectively bargained it. Baseball has a salary cap because they collectively bargained it, and baseball is going to try and get a salary cap again by shutting down the sport because the owners can't control themselves, as I'm I'm sitting here telling you, David, of all the remaining teams, only one of them is in the top 19 in payroll, and it's the Dodgers. Like, there's not an equality problem here. The worst payrolls in the sport, the worst of them. Like, I'm not— 29th, 28th, and 27th highest payrolls. Like, the Yankees just got smoked by the Rays, who were better than them all season long and are paying their players What is it, $200 million less than the Yankees are?

Yeah, we— when we won the World Series, we had a payroll that was lower than other teams. And that is not what the point is. It's the question is, how do you win the World Series? Getting to the playoffs is one thing. Then what are your odds of advancing? Getting to the playoffs when you have a low payroll? Yes, the White Sox lost 100 games 3 years in a row, but so have the Rockies and they're not sniffing the playoffs. The Cubs did it, won a World Series, didn't have a dynasty. The Astros did it, did have a dynasty. It doesn't always work to lose 100 games in a row, 3, 3 seasons in a row and then recover. It just doesn't always work. So you're taking this year and then you're trying to extrapolate over the course of an entire CBA or an entire decade. And that's just not the math.

The thing that you're doing, though, is you want prices fixed for the owners and I don't.

Yeah, Dan, no, that's not actually what I'm saying, because in the NBA, It makes me crazy. And the owners too, that they have to pay a 12th guy on the bench multiple millions of dollars who stinks. We call it internally in the business like, I can't believe how many concacs there are. It's— and that's a salary cap league. And that's just the reality. Salary cap and salary floor actually helps more members of the union. And it sounds like I'm pimping for the owners, except they call every day listening to Nothing Personal, threatening to call you to cut off my microphone. because I'm, I'm not so pro-owner at all. But you just don't have the facts right of what a salary cap and salary floor would do for the players. They would actually, as a union, get more money. But the reason why it's being fought is that someone like Scott Boras says, but you're stopping 10 guys from making the most they can make. And that's just not really what it's—

You don't think I have my facts right on they want a salary cap because the owners want something that controls the Steve Cohens of the world from screwing up the entire salary structure?

Yes. So it's not that actually, because he's got 26 guys. The Steve Cohen tax is what it's called. And the Dodgers are actually over it. But football— excuse me, basketball has it. It's called the second apron. And all the owners and Amin will agree they are scared of the second apron. They don't want to go over the second apron. And that is the definition of when you have a soft cap versus a hard cap. So don't listen to Draymond Green say, well, owners want to pay more money, just let them. That's not exactly what's happening.

I think Draymond's point is, is the idea that Steve Ballmer would go to these lengths to pay Kawhi Leonard more money is proof that some owners would want to pay more money. The thing that redistributes the wealth for the NBA and allows us to have such a robust middle class is the maximum salary. The idea is that if I could pay, for example, Steph Curry what he was worth, which is probably $80, $90 million in terms— when you bring in not just on-court product, but also the ticket sales, the attention, all the stuff that they get as a result of having Steph Curry, but still had a salary cap, what would happen is the 12th guy that you're talking about, David, would make minimum because we wouldn't be able to afford under the cap.

That's what happens in the NHL. Right.

Like, so, so basically it's the, the limits on the individual salary that create that middle class. But when you talk about overall spending, what it would do is, yes, it would curtail what the Dodgers and the Yankees do, but it would force all those cheap clubs to spend up. And that's what David is talking about, if I'm not mistaken. Right. It's— there's a lot more people running it cheap than there are people who are overpaying on the top end.

The math is very clear. And in the owners' proposal, and this again, it's right there in black and white, and the players union just hasn't responded. The salary floor that MLB is presenting would cause more money to go into the system than the amount of money that goes out of the system, quote unquote, by having a salary cap lower than where 2 or 3 teams are. And the union just doesn't know how to do the math. Just one more thing on Draymond Green, if you don't mind. There's people who for a living— and I assume Draymond Green has one of these— a tax attorney. And a tax attorney's job is to go through the tax code, like your accountant does, and figure out how to make you pay the fewest dollars in taxes. We all have people doing that for us. That doesn't mean that there's something inherently wrong with the tax code or that we disagree with having a tax code. It means that we are going to do everything we can within the rules to get the biggest advantage. That's just how things are. So I don't view owners as trying to get around it the way Ballmer does as an indictment on a salary cap.

Yeah, I was just going to say that Ballmer didn't do it within the rules, though. I think that's his point. It's like if there's this— if this type of rule-skirting or even rule straight-up just disregard is happening, then why do we have a salary cap at all?

But I mean, people go to jail for tax fraud. So yes, there are people who do not operate within the rules and they get punished for it, which is what happened to Steve Ballmer. But that doesn't mean that there aren't other teams who are finding ways. Don't the Heat have an entire department on how to deal with the salary cap?

It's just Ellisberg. It's just Ellisberg. He keeps it all in his head. Yeah, it's one guy. One formidable—

one hell of a guy, though.

Yeah, one formidable guy. I want to ask—

they have key man insurance.

I want to ask Amin this, and David, I want to bring you in on it as well as we talk about the second apron. What's going on with the Knicks is interesting because I believe James Dolan will quickly use up all of the goodwill that he got from the championship. He immediately went on the radio and said he doesn't want to get into the second apron. And now Karl-Anthony Towns is saying his contract's not going to get done. They lost Mitchell Robinson. I mean, what do you make of the way the, the Knicks are being managed right now and the fact that KAT is saying before the season, yeah, my contract extension isn't going to get done?

Yeah, uh, so the Knicks, obviously Jim Dolan has been very clear about where he wants the spending to be, and that's all well and good when you're trying to lowball Landry Shamet and Jose Alvarado, which is what they did in the offseason. Karl-Anthony Towns is a different story. When you talk about his contributions and, and quite frankly, his irreplaceability as a talent. You can't kind of lowball that or extract kind of savings on that. This is the part where the Jalen Brunson took less thing is very detrimental because as we've explained many a time, he took less in the short term. He'll make all that money back on his next deal because the way it works out—

Which is next year.

Yeah, he opts out and it's when he's eligible for the 10-year.

Well, we'll see. Maybe he takes a big discount again.

I don't think he will.

All right.

I don't think he will. Like, all of this was designed for him to get his money, but in the short term, Give the team a little bit more flexibility to build and add guys. Right? But when you do that, now it turns into the thing that— obviously the fans loved it. It was like, oh my God, what a guy. But now it turns into a pressure on everyone else.

Sure.

On the Josh Harts, the Myles McBrides, and of course the Karl-Anthony Towns of the world, which is, hey, why aren't you a team guy like Jalen? Well, it's like, well, Jalen didn't give up the money. He just said, I'll take it later. So what's happening now is— and I'm sure, David, you appreciate this— is a good old-fashioned game of leverage, right? where the Knicks are saying, look, all this pressure for us to keep this thing together, it's all on you, KAT. Are you going to mess this up? Meanwhile, KAT's saying, hold on, you can't replace me like you can replace some of these other guys, because other than Embiid, Jokic, and Wembanyama, there's not a center in the league who can do what I do.

Are you saying that you would give him the $275 million right now with reckless indifference toward what it would mean once Brunson gets his new deal and what the reality is in a capped world when you don't want to be in the second apron, that you will not be able to have a team that is able to win because the role players just won't be available at the numbers you have.

So number one, I'm not saying that. I'm saying it's a good old-fashioned game of leverage where the Knicks are arguing, hey, we need to keep this team together. And Karl-Anthony Towns is arguing, hey, based on who I am and what I do, if I walk— and he can because he can opt out at the end of the year— you can't replace me. There's nobody out there other than these generational talents that aren't going anywhere.

They're never going to allow him just to walk.

Allow him? What's to allow? He can opt out. He can leave.

And then they'll trade him before February.

So, but now you get into— you'll trade him. Can you build a team without him that is championship caliber? I would argue no. The second apron, folks, let me just explain this theoretically, like philosophically, what the second apron is. It is the league asking you Are you sure about that?

Uh-huh.

Oh, this is my favorite roster. I think this is the best roster ever. I'll spend whatever. You sure about that? Yeah, I don't want anything else. I will need for nothing if I have this roster. Go ahead and do it. You go ahead and do it. If there are any mistakes, if there are any bumps, like, oh, it turns out I actually need an extra this, well, you're shit out of luck because like David said, it's hard to get those role players now. It's hard to continue to improve your team when you're in the second apron. The difference between the Knicks and every other second apron team we've seen—

What is it?

Is that they know that roster is good enough. They won the championship. We just saw them do it. And they brought back 90% of the roster. They lost Huck Porty. They lost Mitchell Robinson. But for the most part, all the major players are back. So an aversion to the second apron at this stage— I'm not saying later, 3, 4 years down the line. saying right now it's kind of ridiculous because you know this roster is good.

David, why are you shaking your head no?

Because I'm just curious what our friends at DraftKings say. Are the Knicks favored to win the title this year?

I doubt it.

Favored to win the title?

Probably 5th or 6th if I had to think. I'm gonna guess they're behind the Spurs, maybe even behind the Thunder, behind the Sixers.

I don't think they're behind—

I can look this up on the DraftKings Sports app, now available on all 50 states.

Let me just say right now, they're behind the Sixers. That's the market.

That's not like an prediction.

Well, he was just asking. Where's the money and where's the— where are the favorites? I would, I would assume the Knicks are about 5th or 6th. What would you guess?

Let's say 3rd.

Dan Levitar. There's sunglasses in boxes today, but in my bed in the hospital, ending our lives all the same.

Jeremy Tatché.

It's the final nightgown. This is the Dan Le Batard Show.

I have a good one.

Yep.

Spurs and Thunder are tied, +270. Then the Sixers and Knicks are tied, +900. And the Celtics and the Cavs. So, okay.

Wow.

So I think it's clear that while the Knicks did win the title last year, the view of the market, if you want to say that, or the experts, however you want to say it, is that they're likely not a dynasty. And I mean, you said it perfectly, a front office who sticks with the same crew and gets into that second apron, then you're like the Cavaliers and you're just screwed where you think you've got the team and you sign all these players to max deals. You saw it with Durant and you're seeing it where there's a reticence by teams now to just willy-nilly give the max because it turns out they're not winning titles. And then if they win a title, they can't win another title. And then you're stuck and you're inflexible. So I just don't think KAT is going to win this. You talk about leverage. Yeah. If I'm Jimmy Dolan, see you later, KAT. We love the ring. We appreciate the ring. You know, good luck out the door. Have fun.

We could say that they're not a dynasty or whatever, but I guarantee you, if Karl-Anthony Towns is not on this roster, This team get all the way back into the— everyone, I don't care how many draft picks you get out of it and how many players you get, you cannot replace him because literally the list of people you can replace him with is 3 guys.

So David, what are you doing there though? They just won a championship, okay? It's the goodwill that that team has not had in more than 50 years, and you're hitting them with good luck out the door, have fun. Like, that's not going to fly.

Dan, I'm so sorry. What? The goodwill? What are you talking about? Madison Square Garden prints money. So whether they are out in the first round, the second round, or miss the playoffs, when you look at their—

David, David, you're an expert at dismantling champions immediately after you've won a World Series.

And then give me a break.

Well, no, but I'm saying, yes, the goodwill—

the goodwill cares anymore. No, but But 23 years ago, David, though, you, you give Pudge $40 million for 4 years.

Again, ridiculous. You win a championship. Your fan base wants you to return the same team, not to have the attitude of good luck out the door. Have fun.

No, actually, that's not what a fan base wants. The fan base wants another ring. They want another title. And you have to believe that the front office knows what's in the best interests of getting another title because they want the same thing.

David, philosophically, I agree with you in general. I think in this specific case, though, Karl-Anthony Towns is just irreplaceable. If we were having this conversation about Josh Hart, who is heart and soul of the team and everybody loves him and he's great, I would be the guy in the room if we say, hey, Josh wants $30 million a year. I'm like, I can go out and get another Josh Hart, right? Myles McBride is actually the one in the most vulnerable position because there's dozens of Myles McBrides all across the league and in the G League.

They did it with Hartenstein a couple of seasons before.

Well, they went out and got— they got Towns.

But they just loved somebody— the fan base loved somebody who was replaceable.

Right.

Like, so the whole point is about, hey, even if I get someone else, is he as good as the guy that went out the door? No. But is he a reasonable facsimile for a lot less money? That's the game we're playing in this salary-cap sport. It's always, can I get a reasonable facsimile for a fraction of the cost and then take that savings and spend it elsewhere in more dire needs, right? The problem here is Karl-Anthony Towns is too good of a player to say I can get a reasonable facsimile. Because we're not just talking about a guy who scores inside and can step out and shoot, not just shoot well for a big guy, but shoot well among the best shooters in the league. It's another level of, oh, and then I could put him in the elbow and he's facilitating my offense and he's making these passes. And we saw that change the Knicks' overnight, basically in the middle of the playoffs. So when I say, well, who are the guys who are 7 feet tall who score inside and shoot and also play and facilitate? Jokic, Embiid, Wembanyama. End of list. And so you take him off, who do you replace him with?

Whatever you do, it will not be as good. The overall quality of the team has dropped. We already know that center is a, a little bit thinner this year because Mitchell Robinson's out the door, because Ariel Hakpore is out the door. and Andre Drummond is basically your only other center on the roster. That's why, David, philosophically you might say, no, no, no, hey, don't let the door hit you where the good Lord split you. But I think in this case it's a little bit different.

Look how happy David is at just, don't let the door hit you where the good Lord split you. Is that what you're smiling about?

Yeah, I never heard that before. What? And I absolutely— I've never heard that expression in my life and I absolutely love it, Amin. Hmm. Don't let the good door hit you where the good Lord split you. I'm hoping you talk about like the—

I like the door.

Good twice.

David, what do you make of what's happening with Digger?

So I've not seen it yet, but here's what the business side of it is. Tom Cruise, it turns out, may not be the headlining act outside of the action genre that he thinks he is. And we may be getting to the point where his strangeness and his sort of Peter Pan-like qualities, along with his Scientological proclivities, have made it that he is not someone you want to invest behind. Or in the alternative, it's a crappy movie. And I don't know which. But what I do know is that it is a huge flop and it doesn't feel like it's gonna be one of those cult classics that doesn't have a good box office, but it ends up being an awards darling or has some sort of post- you know, theater-run life.

David, I think Tom Cruise is probably the biggest movie star ever. But you can't tell me that they could have put somebody else in that role. And we're watching these trailers and we're going to go see that movie.

So I think that what Tom Cruise tries to do— what did it remind you of when you watched the trailer? It reminded me of the role he played in Tropic Thunder, where he tries to just be funny, tries to wear makeup. And it was incredibly charming and amazing, that character in Tropic Thunder. As much as that movie would not get made today, rescued his Rescued Tom Cruise's career, that, that role. Oh, I, I don't know that, Dan. Was he not? He hadn't started.

He was in trouble. He was jumping on Oprah's couch. People, people—

I'm in love with Katie Holmes. I'm in love with Katie Holmes.

Yeah. So that's, that's still Tom Cruise. He's still that. There's still rumors around him about everything related to his life and sort of the strangeness of it. But it just shows that a good character and a good movie can win the day no matter what. And I guess Digger is just not— Mike, did you see it?

I don't believe any of us have seen it yet, have we?

I can't wait to see it. And guys, not only am I gonna see it, I'm gonna go see it in IMAX just to prove a point, to prove a point to Christopher Nolan. You can't just force-feed me this IMAX stuff. I'm gonna go. I'm choosing. You know why? You know why? The reason why Digger's not doing well is because they didn't appeal to the 22-year-old TikTokers with some fun meme or something like that, which is all these people care about. That's how movies like Backrooms and Obsession and do gajillion dollars. It's not 'cause they're good movies. It's because they want the TikTokers and everyone's like, ooh, I wanna use that sound. I wanna go, now, now, now, now, now, now. That's all it comes down to now. Guys, Hollywood is dead. Entertainment is dead. Everything is just about the memes and the algorithms. Why are we even doing this? Even this show. You know what? Turn out the lights. We're done.

An excellent rant. You don't decide when we're done. We have 2 hours and 15 minutes left.

See ya, mean.

Good job. You can storm off in your rage. Take the rest of the day off. The Reaper has arrived here And I'd like to combine a couple of things here. I'd like to go to the bucket and also while we're at the bucket, ask David to break down the Disney-FCC clash while we're doing this. Let's combine the 2 things.

Dan, have you been made very much aware at all of what happened with Disney suing the government? Because you need to get licensed by the government, by the FCC, in order to have ABC Network. And you apply for those licenses in increments of multiple years. But all of a sudden, the FCC said, "Hey Disney, we need you to renew your license right now. You have to start the application process." And the reason they did it, according to Disney, is that our president did not like what ABC News was doing, didn't like the choices they were making politically. And Disney said, "Hold on here, government. We are." suing you. They went to federal court, and they're going to win by saying that the president and the government is violating our First Amendment rights to operate. We don't need to get a new license. We have a license. This is being retaliatory for us doing our job. And the judge in federal court heard the arguments and said, wow, this seems strange, FCC. Why did you go after ABC for these new license registrations when they— you didn't need to. Could it be what they're saying, that you're trying to quash the news?

That's not good in our country, even when we are judges on the right. So they are briefing it, which means they're arguing it back and forth. And what Disney is saying is that they are impacted by this. They are making editorial changes based on the government cracking down on what they talk about, which is not America, that's Russia. So you want to know how to win a lawsuit? Pretend that you can't talk about something that you want to talk about, go to court, and you're gonna win. And that's what's happening in our country today. Disney is in a lawsuit against the government, and they're gonna win.

Roy selected the Bengals. The Bengals are playing against the Dolphins here in Miami and are a 6.5-point favorite. 1.5-point favorite.

Put it back, David. The Dolphins are winning that. Let me just get this. Is it with the spread or is it just even?

Straight up.

Straight up? You can bet your Bipster. I'm taking the Bengals. I'm undefeated. No costumes for me, Danny White.

What just happened? What just happened? Okay. You usually say you can bet your Bippy and instead you changed it to Bipster. No one says that.

Like what?

Well, because you don't like when I say things that you think are from the '70s. So that's from the 2020s.

No, no, he made a change.

He updated.

Nope, nobody says you can bet your bibster. Who says you can do that?

I do.

I hear it all the time.

Just now. Tastemaker.

I hear it all the time. Trendsetter. Dan Le Batard. Analytics have slash are ruining the game. We're playing AI hoops.

That's his team! His team's in the forefront of all that!

Dan's ass, don't steal my thunder!

I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, sorry.

Jonathan Sasslow.

I get carried away.

This is the Dan Le Batard Show. Congratulations, David. What's the movie you're reviewing for us this week?

Bang Your Box: The Robin Byrd Story.

Hello.

Please tell me that anyone in that room other than you, Dan, knows what Channel J is in New York City and knows who Robin Byrd is.

I mean, I haven't seen that movie, but I've wanted to see it. It has gotten my attention because of this, what we're gonna show you right now. It just— they put that up and then all of a sudden it's something that I wanna watch, but I don't know what it's about.

So Robin Byrd was a— basically had a TV show that she was the host of that was on the same channel as Al Goldstein's Midnight Blue. It's where there was nudity. And for boys who were just beginning to understand what to do when you saw something that wasn't necessarily through squiggly lines and figuring out that, wow, that's actually a nipple, what do I do here? She had this unbelievable TV show that taught people that sex is okay, that talking about sex is okay, that being sexual is okay. And this is during the time when AIDS was starting to happen and there was all of this, hey, if you're promiscuous, you're dead. And Robin Byrd became this amazing spokesperson for really the sexual revolution for both men, straight and not, for women, straight or not. And she now has grown up and she has a documentary about her which goes through all the things she did to try to move forward our interest and ability to talk about sex. And Robin Byrd was a very, very important part of my childhood and many people my age. And I was thrilled to see her and that she's still around on Fire Island.

She's like the mayor of Fire Island, which has both a gay side and a straight side. in New York, and it's well worth your time. Anything called— I mean, that was her thing. They sang a song at the end of every show, Bang My Box, all with naked guys and girls, and you're just— you're, you're like Tweety Bird going around and saying, more, more, more. Talk to me. It's a good movie.

Some of our listeners/viewers may know her from her work in Debbie Does Dallas.

Yes, you may.

I put it on the poll at Le Batard Show. Wow, there's a nipple.

What do I do here?

Just make it one word, yes or no. So, uh, Michael, what do you have for, uh, David before you get out of here?

Michael? All right, Michael, I would like to ask about college football ratings. They are down 11% year over year to this point, and a lot of people are pointing to a narrative that, well, college football's gotten too political this year. However, the program that is steering that narrative is College GameDay, and they're up year over year. So what's happening now?

Well, 2 things, Mike. You know that the way Nielsen measures has changed. That's number one. But number two, no one's focused on the ratings. When we talk to John Skipper on Sporting Class and when we think about every— the obsession we all have with ratings and the PR announcements that come with it, none of these huge broadcast deals, the broadcast platforms, the streamers, they don't focus on that at all. So whether they're down 11% or up 11%, where I'd like to focus with you is what is the status of these broadcast deals? What's the status of the Protect College Sports Act and the antitrust exemption that will allow conferences to actually negotiate TV deals in entirety. So that to me is a far bigger story. I don't think anybody should be focused on the ratings.

Nothing Personal is the name of his podcast. And every day, weekdays for 2 hours, he is covering a ton of terrain that I legitimately hear no one else in sports media, never mind sports business, sports media covering. So I suggest that you listen and watch if you want to be more informed especially on sports business and especially on baseball. Thank you, David. Good seeing you.

Bet your Bipster.

Yeah, bet your Bipster. I don't— modern phrases or language that's outside of the 1970s is not something you're going to get with Nothing Personal. You can bet your Bipster. I want to ask a question that I do not believe anyone in the American sports media is asking today based on what I think was the most talkable story that came from baseball last night. And the question is this: there was evidently a home run interfered with during the Yankee game that would have tied it 4-4 that instead became a ground rule double. I actually thought that Victor Mesa could have caught that ball, but we can discuss various versions of this in a second. The question that I wanted to pose in front of you guys today is, in my history watching sports, I'm remembering the names of 2 fans ever. It's Jeffrey Mayer and it's Steve Bartman. And I remember those names decades after they interfered. I'm not going to remember the name of whoever it is that did this last night. And the question I want to ask you is, what changed here? Because I'm remembering Jeffrey Mayer's name for doing that in Yankee Stadium, and that's 25 years old.

Steve Bartman did it with the Cubs. These are 2 major franchises, but it happened again in a Yankee game last night. What change that will make it so that last night's Yankee fan will not have his name remembered and recorded by history?

So Jeffrey Mayer was the first really famous one, right? Because that one was clearly not going to be a home run, and he, he stuck his glove out and scooped it, and it was ruled a home run. And many people at the time thought the Yankees would have lost. It was a high-leverage moment in a high-leverage playoff game, and it ended up working out in the Yankees' favor. So that's why he's famous, right? He's beloved in New York.

In, in replay age, that's something that could not have happened today.

Yes. Now fast forward to the Bartman, and the Bartman was the opposite, right? Because Moises Alou had the catch. The home team, the Cubs, were gonna win this game, but the Bartman sticks out his hand and grabs the ball, and as a result, the Cubs lose the game and they end up losing the series, and everyone blames the Bartman. And for that, he becomes a villain. Mayer, hero. Bartman, villain.

Alex Gonzalez completely off the hook.

Alex S. Gonzalez. Let's not confuse here.

So to clarify to you, Dan, why is this guy not going to get remembered? Because the Yankees were already facing elimination and looked outclassed and outgunned in this series. And so the reality is that guy doing that, maybe they would have won? but we all felt like the Yankees were done for anyway.

Well, and there's also no reason to remember him. The right call was made.

It's also earlier in the playoffs. Like, you're looking at a team down 2-0 in the ALDS.

Not the Mayer one. The Mayer one was—

Mayer's Game 1 of the World Series.

It was Game 1 of the World Series.

No, it was ALCS.

Oh, ALCS. Game 1 of the ALCS.

I apologize.

They went on to win the World Series, but it's Game 1 of the ALCS. It's actually—

it's, it's 30 years ago tomorrow.

And was it a cheater too? Was it a cheater?

It was a cheater.

So we got to remember it as a big moment for him as they go on to win their first World Series.

So you're talking about things that ultimately influenced a team that was in the middle of a curse still in the Cubs, and you're talking about later into the playoffs. It's the only game on.

Isn't it amazing? I think if you put it on a poll, hey, does it mean no baseball? Resoundingly, you'd say, no, he doesn't know anything about baseball. And I'm sitting here and I'm like, I'm remembering Moises Alou and Steve Bartman and Jeffrey Mayer and all these— it's like right there.

So aren't you amazing is the question you're asking us?

No, I'm— what the question I'm asking is, how is it that I retain all of this information about a sport that I quote unquote don't know shit about, right? 30 years later!

Who are these people quoting you that you don't know shit about it?

Put it on the poll. Does Amin know baseball?

No, put it on the poll. Isn't Amin amazing? Because it is the question you wanted to ask.

Am I the only one that thought that stunk last night that they overturned that? Like, I know— It's the right call! Get out of my mentions. I know it was technically the right call, but in that spot, the tying home run It's just like, oh wait, it's a game time great moment. Oh wait, let me look at that. Technically it was an inch.

Is this your new thing now where you just take things that are factually incorrect and you, and you stand on them? Like last night, they got the call right. You don't want them to get the call right. The Panthers went undefeated on the road trip. They lost 2 games.

It's just, I just hated that last night. I just, I was watching it. It was such a cool moment, and then just to take that away.

It was cheating.

It was just bullshit. I just hated it. And I know it's right.

You're a Yankee fan though.

Yeah, that's it.

Maybe. Uh, there was a game I was watching yesterday. I was enjoying the technical aspects. Again, we just said that Jeter got a home run that wasn't a home run, that wouldn't have counted if we had instant replay. Thank you, Cam. The, uh, the thing that I wanted to get into that I was watching yesterday is they go to instant replay, okay? A A batter is awarded first base on a hit-by-pitch and they challenge it and they say, no, that did not hit him, that hit his bat. And the announcers are arguing about it and they still don't know after watching the replays, did it hit his forearm, whatever else. But as they're arguing, did that hit the, uh, did that hit the batter or did they hit the bat, the other dugout then files its challenge and says, no, that was catcher's interference. And they start looking at the bat and whether it hit the strings of the catcher's glove, just the strings of the catcher's glove. And I'm like, this is all nonsense. Everything they're doing here is nonsense. You can't just stop the game and start putting a microscope on every damn thing and not have it be stupid.

This is why replay is terrible, folks. Get rid of it. We don't need it.

I like—

I'm like Chris. I like this. Like, hey, did he touch it? Did he? I don't know. We're just gonna have to live with the results. But by the way, Dan, you mentioned— I'm sorry, to go back to the guy that interfered with the home run, or maybe not a home run, right? We won't remember his name. But he got escorted out of the stadium. Police escort.

Yeah.

And I'm like, he didn't do anything wrong.

He interfered with the game.

He didn't interfere.

It's an RBI double.

Well, good point. I mean, at the end there.

He is amazing.

Always showing us all of the ways that he's amazing. I have another theory on this because you offered good nuance and good qualifiers. I don't think that baseball matters in the national consciousness the way that it used to matter. And so it's happening in a Yankee game. That's where, like, people get pissed off. The fact that history is not going to remember the person's name, and I'm giving you the names 20 years later of 2 fans that I remember.

Has the name even come out?

I haven't seen the name. Bartman has never spoken as far as I— no one's ever gotten the Bartman interview, correct?

No, but he did release a statement after they won the World Series, what, like a decade ago?

Yeah. So they did the documentary. on ESPN's 30 for 30. He refused to be part of it, but there are people around him who talked about it, and his mental state wasn't great even years later. And like Zaz said, when they won, he released a statement, but even then he wouldn't come out and speak.

Uh, are you believing though, Zaz, what I'm saying? The idea that just baseball does not matter the way that it mattered with everyone 30 and 20 years ago, so that even when it happens in a Yankee game, history is just gonna sort of forget? Part of it is also that they were gonna lose anyway, but it would have been a game-tying home run. Like, it It would have made the sport— it would have made that game—

But it was so obviously not a home run.

Also, the Yankees stink now.

It feels like it's such a contrived argument, like, oh, that would have been awesome, but upon watching the replay, it was very clearly not a home run.

Thank you, Michael.

Don't let the good door hit you where the good Lord split you.