HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rhame@ctp.com (Rich Hamel)
Subject: Blue Jays first game box score
Keywords: Jays, Chisox, April '77
Organization: Cambridge Technology Partners
Distribution: world,local
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 15:14:51 GMT

Hi,

    Does anyone have a baseball dictionary or some other source that has the
box score of Toronto's first ever game? I'm playing in a Strato replay of
the '77 AL and am the 'Jays, and the White Sox player and I would like to use
the actual first day lineups if we can find them.

    Thanx in advance for any help.

                                                            Rich



++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
!  Rich Hamel                      !                                       !
!  Cambridge Technology Partners   !  Asps?!! VERY Dangerous... You go     !
!  304 Vassar St.                  !  first!                               !
!  Cambridge, MA 02139             !                                       !
!  (617)-233-8266                  !  OK, Blue Jays, lets play ball!!      !
!                                  !                                       !
!                                  !  Toronto Blue Jays, 1992 Champions    !
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++




Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: maynard@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Roger Maynard)
Subject: Re: Expos Clinch! Wallach to Dodgers
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Laurentian University, Sudbury, ON
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 21:38:19 GMT

In <1993Jan3.210529.20966@cs.cornell.edu> tedward@cs.cornell.edu (Edward [Ted] Fischer) writes:

>In article <1993Jan3.194201.28068@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca> maynard@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Roger Maynard) writes:
>>In <1993Jan3.092505.4128@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:

>Roger, you are an idiot.  Hansen plays for the Dodgers.  The Dodgers
>are replacing him with Wallach at some cost...

Quite right.  I don't follow the NL as well as I could.  I stand corrected.
(I was wondering why I had never heard of an Expo named Hansen...)

Do you call everyone an idiot every time you have the opportunity to 
correct them?

rm

-- 
Roger Maynard
maynard@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: root@sgi.com (Super-User)
Subject: Re: Giants rookie pitchers, and stuff?
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 18:44:53 GMT

In article <Dec.26.09.27.41.1992.11061@pilot.njin.net> gajarsky@pilot.njin.net (Bob Gajarsky - Hobokenite) writes:
>
>for anyone that knows..
>
>any idea if salomon torres or rick huisman are supposed to pitch
> in the majors for the giants this year?
>
Hard to be sure about this but if I had to guess I would say that Huisman
will get a look in spring training with an outside chance. He had good
numbers in AAA last year but is only 1 year removed from A ball. Look for
him as a mid-season callup. Torres will most likely be in AAA this season. 
His numbers moving from A to AA dropped off a bit, however, I recall an
injury being part of the equation. 

luigi
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: deitch@gisatl.FIDONET.ORG (David Deitch)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Braves Sign Maddux, LOSE 93 SERIES!!!!!!!!
Date: 22 Dec 92 02:13:54 GMT
Organization: Galaxy Information System (GIS) Atlanta, Ga

Dateline Wed, 16/Dec92 17:42.
In , richard.g.barry of gotribe@cbnewse.cb.att.com  wrote to All at 1:133/411,

 r> The Braves aren't necessarily doomed, but they really 
 r> haven't improved themselves much.  They lose Liebrandt 
 r> (16 wins) and gain Maddux (20 wins).  Otherwise, their 
 r> team is pretty much the same as last year (weak 
 r> offensively at C, 1B, 2B, SS).

    It is also basically the same team as in 1991.  Let's not forget this same team for two years has made it to the World Series.  Even if they lost both times, the same team that will (barring lockout) hit the diamond next spring has as good a chance as they did the last two years.

    David Deitch (GIS),
    Net 133 FidoNet<==>UUCP Gateway Administrator



--  
                   __ 
FidoNet <==> UUCP /  \   UUCP: wittsend!gisatl!deitch 
  Gateway & FAQ  / oo \  Internet: deitch@gisatl.FIDONET.ORG
                (_|  /_)         
David Deitch,    _`@/_ \    _  Galaxy Information System
Administrator   |     | \   \\ (GIS) Atlanta
(404)252-1699   | (*) |  \_  ))
    ______      |__U__| /  \//   User: David Deitch
   / FIDO \      _//|| _\   /    Via FidoNet Node: 1:133/411.0
  (________)    (_/(_|(____/ (jm)   
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: nlu@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu)
Subject: Re: Expos Clinch! Wallach to Dodgers
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 18:53:24 GMT

In article <1992Dec26.041708.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> djcoll04@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:

>Hey,, I'm not saying that Wallach will necessarily rise from the ashes. While
>he had a worse OBP than Deshields in teir off years, he didn't approach 
>Deshields league leading strikeout total.

Why is this important?  How much worse is a strike out over any other kind of
out?
>
>Remember, Expos fans, that they told us that Tim Raines was washed up.  He 
>has played consistent ball since the trade while Calderon was on the bench
>and Barry Jones was a wash.

Big difference: Raines was 30 when he had his final year with the Expos, and
his year wmore better than Wallach's.  (He had a .287/.379/.392 in that
final season with Montreal, vs. Wallach's .223/.296/.331.  To compare Wallach
to Raines would be about comparing Raines to Frank Thomas.)
>
>Doesn't anyone out there believe in the importance of a good defense and a
>veteran, experienced presence in that defense?  

Yes, as we see in Terry Pendleton; however, we also see how "veteran,
experienced presence in defense" can ruin an offense (e. g., Gary Gaetti,
Dick Schofield, etc., etc., etc.)  In fact, the scary thing about Wallach is
that he had a comparable season to Gaetti and played about 50% more.

===============================================================================
GO CALIFORNIA ANGELS!
===============================================================================
Nelson Lu (claudius@leland.stanford.edu)
From: sullis@rpi.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: test; please ignore
Date: 2 Jan 1993 10:20:19 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

Distribution:  ny

Test to rec-sport-baseball@cs.utexas.edu
Sorry
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: poutsmaj@mace.cc.purdue.edu (unknown)
Subject: Re: stats help
Organization: Purdue University
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 19:23:58 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.184401.12596@news2.cis.umn.edu> thornley@deca.cs.umn.edu (David H. Thornley) writes:
>
>>What would be the distribution of possible outcomes?
>
>This is *very* close to the normal distribution with mean 810 and standard
>deviation sqrt(0.5*0.5*1620) = 0.5*sqrt(1620), which is about equal to
>20, a little over actually.  If you are familiar with the normal distribution,
>fine.  If not, it's a bell-shaped distribution, and it means that team A
>will win between 1600 and 1640 about two-thirds of the time (actually, this
>gives you a good order-of-magnitude estimate of equal wins, given that you
>have about 40 possibilities for about two-thirds of the chances - I'd call
>it between two and three percent), and between 1580 and 1660 about 95% of
>the time, and between 1560 and 1680 almost all the time.
>
>

This is very much what I was hoping for (esp the std dev part), thanks :)

[more interesting stats-probability discussion deleted]


paul




Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: wall@cc.swarthmore.edu (Matthew Wall)
Subject: Re: Cordero
Followup-To: rec.sport.baseball
Organization: Swarthmore College Computing CenterCenter
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 14:36:45 GMT

You know, one thing I forgot about when posting yesterday was that many of
the early statistics were in fact developed so that players could be
evaluated sight unseen, and managers hiring ballplayers wouldn't *have* to
rely on local "scouts" saying "oh yeah, he's a great ballplayer!" I
remember some of this from _Playing for Keeps_, so we're talking what -
1860s? as an early benchmark. 

I was also asking myself what effect video might have on scouting. Again,
you don't pick up the ballpark gossip, but I would think that video would
have reduced the need to do a lot of scouting above a certain level.

???

- Matt, working practically alone on Xmas eve

---------------------------------------------------------
This space left intentionally blank until spring training.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: scott@asd.com (Scott Barman)
Subject: Re: Holiday Gift 
Organization: American Software Development Corp., West Babylon, NY
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 22:15:03 GMT

In article <1992Dec24.000338.1@uwovax.uwo.ca> jpalmer@uwovax.uwo.ca (The Econoclast) writes:
>As a holiday gift to MLB and especially Bud Selig, I hereby 
>offer to spend my sabbatical next year as the next commissioner of MLB. 

You get a sabbatical?  Gee...  I would quit my job and do a full term
as the next commissioner.  At least I know a little bit about the insides
of television to discuss the next contract with them!

:-)	<-- for the humor impaired
-- 
scott barman			| <This space intentionally left blank>
scott@asd.com			|
 (I can barely speak for myself, you expect me to speak for my employer??)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: spira@panix.com (Greg "Sarcasm Is A Way Of Life" Spira)
Subject: Re: EXPOS :TEAM TO BEAT IN THE EAST
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 06:10:40 GMT
Organization: Boo!  

In <1020@blue.cis.pitt.edu> genetic+@pitt.edu (Dr. Dave) writes:

>Stick around, Jonathon.  I know a lot of stat-drunk comp nerds (myself
>included) who think the Expos are the class of major league baseball for
>the foreseeable future.  I couldn't believe it when I heard that they'd
>acquired Tim Spehr somehow (how did that happen?).  That gives them a 
>starting in-the-field lineup of 

>	C	Spehr
>	1B	sign a free agent
>	2B	DeSheilds
>	SS	Cordero
>	3B	Stairs?

Unfortunately, Dave, I think the chances of the Expos putting Stairs
at third is about the same as the Rockies hiring Pete Palmer as their
GM.  And it's quite possible that he really can't play third.

I suspect that Wallach will continue to receive playing time if the
Expos can't unload him, and that Sean Berry, who's not any better,
will get playing time there as well.

Stairs will get playing time if Alou or Walker gets injured; otherwise,
I just don't see the Expos playing him.


Greg 
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: Richard_Robb@mindlink.bc.ca (Richard Robb)
Subject: Re: Can you go home again? (wasRe: ward to atlant
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 10:41:31 GMT

And how about the Blue Jays reacquiring Luis Sojo and Mark Eichhorn from the
Angels?  Yes, you CAN go home again - and some would even want to.  (Eichhorn
seemed happier to be back than the fans were to have him back ....)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: mjones@fenway.aix.kingston.ibm.com (Mike Jones)
Subject: era (not ERA)-adjusting stats
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 16:47:08 GMT
Reply-To: mjones@donald.aix.kingston.ibm.com
Organization: IBM Kingston, NY
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

How does one go about era-adjusting stats? F'rinstance, if I'd like to know
what Jimmy Foxx's 1931 would have probably looked like in the 1992 AL, what
should I do with his '31 numbers? Is it as simple as figuring how far above
league average Foxx was in '31 then computing the appropriate amount over
'92 average? It doesn't seem like it could be that simple, since the
"spread" of the distribution was bigger in the "good old days", right?

   Mike Jones  |  AIX/ESA Development  |  mjones@donald.aix.kingston.ibm.com

Probably the best operating system in the world is the [operating system]
made for the PDP-11 by Bell Laboratories.
	- Ted Nelson, October 1977
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: v_siede@pavo.concordia.ca (Kaldis, bill)
Subject: Re: Kelly Mann?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Concordia University
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 01:52:00 GMT

In article <1992Dec26.215413.10022@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>, ts@chainsaw.ecn.purdue.edu (Thomas Ruschak) writes...
>	What ever happened to Kelly Mann? He was traded from the Cubs to the
>Braves a couple of years ago to be the Braves' 'catcher of the future'. However,
>I can't find him in Stat's minor league book... (Unless I just missed him..)
> 
>	Anyone know?
> 
>Tom

1991 - played in the International League - stats were .184/.265/.289

1992 - didn't show up in any minor league stats - so either he was injured 
all year or was released and didn't catch on anywhere.

By the way, did anyone see Brian Deak's stats as part-time catcher for 
Braves AAA team.

By my calcs, his MLE for last year was .241/.397/.374.  His Brock2 
projection makes him look like a decent offensive player.

peak year 109/446 .244 - 23 HRs - 105 BBs - Slg = .451 OBP = .376

He was 24 yo last year - already spent 6 years in the minors - so he's a 
free agent this year.  I don't know about his defense but a guy who could 
catch and hit 15-20 Hrs with 90-100 BBs should be playing in the majors.  
Anybody know more about this guy?

Bill Kaldis
Concordia University

From: lynch@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Howard Lynch)
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 20:15:13 GMT
Subject: Re: 1993 NL MVP
Organization: OCD IC MFG
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball

You'd better put Sheffield and McGriff on the list of candidates for
1993 NL MVP, just to apease us Padre fans :-)

Lynch "MOB"
From: chee1l5@Jane.UH.EDU
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Swindell, Statheads and park effects
Date: 21 Dec 1992 15:10:23 GMT
Organization: University of Houston
Reply-To: chee1l5@Jane.UH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: jane.uh.edu

>
>ObWow!Stat: My MacThang shows that Mulholland had a sensational *15*
>pickoffs last season, more than any two other pitchers combined, and
>more than any four NL pitchers combined.  Even though he gave up
>167 singles and 46 walks, Mulholland only allowed two stolen bases.
>Is it me, or is that pretty damn amazing?  Combined with five CS...wow,
>again.  Anyone know which two baserunners got away with it?  Or why
>twenty-two people even bothered trying?
>-- 
>ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
>standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
>the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637

Double check Leibrant's totals. He picked off three (Astros?) in *one*
game this year. I seem to remember him having 12-15 total.  Some of those
"pickoffs" resulted in the guy just taking off for second and getting nailed,
so maybe they were counted as CS, and not "pickoffs". 

Sam


Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: follick@jemez.eece.unm.edu (Jeremy Follick)
Subject: Re: stats help
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 00:58:44 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <1992Dec29.043208.24387@Princeton.EDU> roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:
>In article <BzzvrB.KCD@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> poutsmaj@mace.cc.purdue.edu (unknown) writes:
>>I have a question regarding basic probability theory:  (I'll use baseball
>>terms because that's what I'm using)  Suppose I have two teams EXACTLY
>>equal to each other such that, when they play, the probability of either
>>team winning is .500000 etc.  If they were to play, say, 1620 games (10
>>seasons) against each other, what is the probability that they will each
>>win exactly half?  What would be the distribution of possible outcomes?
>>If I have two teams that play and each win half, what is the probability
>>that the two are exactly equal ?  Any insight you can give me to this 
>>problem would be helpful (I realize that this is probably elementary 
>>probability theory, but that was one math class I never had).
>
>Yes, elementary probability theory.  Binomial distribution.  Think
>coin tosses, or toin cosses, as most stats teachers wind up saying...
>
>Now think of Pascal's Triangle, which you learned about in 10th grade
>or so:
>
>             1
>           1   1
>         1   2   1
>       1   3   3   1
>     1   4   6   4   1
>   1   5  10  10   5   1
> 1   6  15  20  15   6   1
>etc.
>
>Note the sum of each row.
>
>If you call the top row the 0th row, and the first item in each row 
>the 0th item, then the value of the i-th item in the r-th row is
>
>      r!
>   -------
>   i! * (r-i)!
>
>where x! is the product of all the integers from 1 to x.  The formula above
>can also be written 
>       (r)
>       (i)
>  [actually, only one big set of parens]
>and pronounced "r-choose-i" -- because it's the number of different
>combinations of i items you can choose from a set of size r.  Oh, right--
>x! is pronounced "x-factorial."
>
>OK -- now  what's the answer to your question?  Well, the binomial distribution
>with 1620 trials is represented by the 1620th row of Pascal's triangle.
>And the 810th entry is 
>
>     1620!
>-------------
>810! * 810!
>
>Now, all you have to do is divide this by 2^1620 and you you have your 
>probability.  All rootie?
>
>If you feel like computing it, try taking a few logs, since it's all
>multiplication and division.  You and your computer will feel better.
>
>Roger

Not necessary. It's about 0.019820542 . I can think of a couple of easy
ways to calculate this off the top of my head.

--
*Jeremy Follick                                   follick@chama.eece.unm.edu
*
*            No one can accuse me of being a fair weather fan,
*                      I root for the Indians.
From: genetic+@pitt.edu (Dr. Dave)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Blue Jays-Gillick
Date: 21 Dec 92 18:41:48 GMT
Organization: Department of Industrial Engineering

Thus spake dave@snitor.sni.ca (Dave Till):

>In article <1992Dec16.164157.16703@adobe.com> snichols@adobe.com (Sherri Nichols) writes:

>>How important is the handling of the pitching staff, in the overall scheme
>>of things?  I don't know.  Anybody got any ideas on how to bound it?

>Presumably, the importance of the handling of the pitching staff is
>proportional to the importance of pitching.  

This doesn't necessarily follow.  The importance of handling a pitching staff
depends jointly on how important pitching is to winning, and on how much
effect managing has on quality of pitching.  If coaching/managing can make
a bigger (proportional) difference in pitchers' performance than in hitters'
performance, then the importance of handling the staff correctly goes up.

>Who was it that stated that pitching is 44% of baseball
>(with offense 44%, and defense making up the rest)?

Whoever it was was being silly, since offense has to be 50% of baseball, by
sheer symmetry.  Scoring runs and preventing them are equally important to
winning.

>I can only think of two things worth tracking:
>
>1.  The team ERA before, during, and after the manager's tenure:  if a team's
>ERA improves in mid-season after a managerial change, we can assume, I think,
>that the manager had something to do with it (since the players are the same).

There's a possible problem here with Billy Syndrome, in that there may be
things you can do to get a short term boost in staff performance, but at the
expense of trashing their long-term value.  I don't know if this is possible
or not, but it seems to be what people are claiming about Billy Martin and
the early-'80s A's.

>2.  The amount of time pitchers spend on the DL may be proportional to
>the ability of a manager to handle a pitching staff.  Some managers
>habitually overwork pitchers (Billy Martin is the classic example).

Actually, Roger Craig and Tom House are the classic examples.  Billy's guys
went into retirement, not onto the DL.



-- 
       David Tate        |"Out of the dugout endlessly swinging,
 dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu | Out of the manager's throat, the sound fundamentals,
 Prof. of Story Problems | Out of the six-month season..."            
 Member ORSA, TIMS, SABR | 	Walt "Lefty" Whitman
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: wall@cc.swarthmore.edu (Matthew Wall)
Subject: Re: Cordero
Followup-To: rec.sport.baseball
Organization: Swarthmore College Computing CenterCenter
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 15:33:28 GMT

In article <20554@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu>, ez027993@chip.ucdavis.edu (Gary L.
"Longstop" Huckabay) wrote:

> >>Sherri once claimed that talent could be more accurately assessed by 
> >>relying on stats alone and that observation actually hindered the 
> >>evaluation process!  Do you agree with this? 
> 
> Once the player is 20 years of age I do.  Before that, I think careful
> observation is an important tool - but not a perfect one.  I think observation
> and analysis of mechanics are DIAGNOSTIC tools, not predictive ones. 

{stuff deleted]

> 
> >> Do you believe, as one
> >>who claims to understand the game on both levels, that observation
> >>hinders the evaluation process?
> 
> Depends on who's making the judgment.  If it's a GM who says "I don't care
> if Glenn Braggs hasn't hit before - look at those muscles!  Look at that
> swing.  He'll hit eventually!" then I would say yes, it hinders the 
> evaluation process.  And I would submit that more GMs think like that
> than anyone would care to admit.
> 

Ah, there are some other important reasons to look beyond the stats and
look at the player live. The many extenuating circumstances that affect the
stats need to temper their interpretation, and IMHO require observation to
judge their true impact. For instance, pitchers misused by managers,
hitters with bad lineup spots or game situations, players coming off of or
playing through injuries, fielders playing behind bad pitchers or vice
versa (you know what I mean) and so on. Seeing how a player hangs in for
the right pitch on a 3-2 count is more important than whether they walk or
K. I would note as further proof the number of major leaguers who've made
improvements to their games after reaching the majors - the "maturation"
process and the fact that major leaguers hit their prime around 26-31 - you
can't give somebody natural skills, but you can see through scouting what
room for improvement there is in a host of intangibles not readily apparent
from stats. Maybe that's the gossip part of what Econoclast from London was
talking about.

The problem is the observation, as Gary says, needs to be made by somebody
with a clue, and should be done with multiple samples over long periods.
From what I've learned about scouting, the scouts don't usually do that for
most players.

BTW, has anybody else read "Dollar Sign on the Muscle" ? A great book about
scouting, although in some ways more about scouts.

- matt

---------------------------------------------------------
This space left intentionally blank until spring training.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: tedward@cs.cornell.edu (Edward [Ted] Fischer)
Subject: Re: Expos Clinch! Wallach to Dodgers
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 20:51:32 GMT

In article <1993Jan3.092825.4410@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>
>Furthermore, you're ignoring money.  If they don't sign Wallach, there's
>more money for Dennis Martinez, who is still *good*.  (I saw a post
>claiming that they had to trade Denny because they weren't going to be able
>to afford an extension for him.  Cut the overpriced *losers* like
>Wallach and you have more money for the *talented* veterans like Martinez.)

This is something that Lou Gorman doesn't understand...  He didn't
sign Mark McGwire because there wasn't money...  How often have we
heard this?  Yet he has found money to pay Billy Hatcher, Matt Young,
Jack Clark, Danny Darwin, and other over-the-hill-losers.  Sure, each
one of them is cheaper.  But wouldn't you trade the four of them for
*one* Mark McGwire?

Consider the trade of Wallach to be "Wallach for a half-decent
prospect and half of Dennis Martinez", and it looks a lot better.

-Valentine
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball