HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tedward@cs.cornell.edu (Edward [Ted] Fischer)
Subject: Re: AL Rookie of Year Award?
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 23:36:14 GMT

In article <steph.717717072@pegasus.cs.uiuc.edu> steph@cs.uiuc.edu (Dale Stephenson) writes:
>In <1992Sep25.050240.2328@panix.com> spira@panix.com (Greg "Sarcasm Is A Way Of Life" Spira) writes:
>
>>But the basic "problem" with Lofton is this: the best centerfielder in
>>baseball probably isn't worth as much defensively as the worst defensive
>>shortstop.  
>
>This seems too strong to me.  If we can use the concept of
>"replacement level defense" for a moment, I would suspect the worst
>defensive shortstop in the league would convert *less* plays into outs
>than his replacement would, and is hurting his team defensively.  The
>best centerfielder in baseball converts *more* plays into outs than
>his replacement would, and his helping his team defensively.  So the
>best centerfielder would be far more valuable defensively than the
>worst shortstop.

You are right.  Except that your replacement CF will hit a lot better
than your replacement SS.  Suppose we have a player who can either
play CF well or SS poorly.  Let's call him HoJo.  Suppose we have both
a replacement level SS and a replacement level CF, and we have no
other alternatives at either position.

If we play HoJo in CF, our defense will be much better.  If we play
HoJo at SS, our offense will be much better (since our
replacement-level CF hits better than our replacement-level SS).

Is HoJo more valuable as a shortstop or CF?  Dunno.  (Actually in
real life, he is *not* a good defensive CF, so he is almost certainly
more valuable at shortstop.  But that's not the question here.)

>Thought to ponder:  if Frank Thomas (with existing range, arm, and glovework)
>were placed at shortstop, would he really be more valuable defensively than
>Wally Joyner or Mark McGwire?

No, or he would be played at that position.  Consider a player's value
as follows:

(Offense above average at position) + (Defense above average at position)

Thomas' offense would be *way* above average at shortstop.  But his
defense would cost the team even more runs than that.  He might even
be a net *negative*, while he's a great contributor at 1B.

Back to the HoJo example, at SS he rates very highly in the first part
of the sum.  At CF, he isn't penalized so much in the second.

Cheers,
-Valentine
-- 
Make outs, not walks!					tedward@cs.cornell.edu
Clemens four Cy Young!
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: claudius@leland.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu)
Subject: Re: NL ROY: More Fuel for Debate
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 04:31:22 GMT

Dave, I just thought of a potential weakness in your criticism of my method.
Since I am *not* (unlike in the case of MLV) using RC/27 as a basis of value
per game, per se, you can't really use your Thomas analogy.  But to borrow it:

You mentioned that Thomas might have an RC/27 of around 80 in a league like
the one that Gary's in.  While you might have an RC/27 of around 1.  Assuming
that is correct.  *Then*, over an entire season, how much is the value of
Thomas over you?  Assuming both of you made 27 outs, then Thomas would have
created 80 runs according to my method, while you 1, and thus there is a 79
run difference.

I contend that my method simulates life, in this situation, pretty well.
If we use your estimates, i. e., a team with Thomas would score 15 runs a
game while one with you would score 4 a game.  Then, since it might take Thomas
54 games to make 27 outs, while it would take you about 7 games to do it
(assuming almost 4 outs a game), wouldn't it be possible that Thomas indeed
would be contributing nearly 80 runs over you?

Take it from another point of view.  Assume, again, that his RC/27 is 80, and
yours 1.  You play a 40-game season.  If Thomas makes half an out a game while
you make 4, he would be making 40 outs for the entire season, and thus,
according to my method, be creating ~120 runs for the season, while you,
making 4 outs a game, would make about 160 outs, and thus create ~6 runs.
Don't you think that it wouldn't be overestimating when I predict that Thomas'
team would score 114 more runs than your team, given your own estimates?

Since I am not using RC/27 as a basis for evaluating a player for his
contribution per game but rather for his contribution on the whole, unless
you can come up with a better model that explains why it is inadequate, I am
not going to admit that it is nonsense.

===============================================================================
GO CALIFORNIA ANGELS!
===============================================================================
Nelson Lu (claudius@leland.stanford.edu)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: claudius@leland.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu)
Subject: Re: The Superlatives of the NL
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 92 17:18:21 GMT

In article <1992Oct4.165139.10824@leland.Stanford.EDU> claudius@leland.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu) writes:

>But, in any case, if you are talking about "most valuable rookie hitter" (as
>opposed to either "most valuable rookie" or "best rookie hitter,") then Karros
>*might* have a case, but he's not the *best* rookie hitter, nor is he the most
>valuable rookie overall.

Ooops.  After thinking about that comment, I think I will retract that.  :-)
Karros is the "best rookie *hitter*," but not the "best rookie *batter*." :-)

When they hit the ball (not walks or Ks), Karros is better than Sanders;
unfortunately, he also walks as much as Todd Benzinger.  Actually, I am not
all that sure that he's a better hitter when they hit the ball.  Let me see...

Karros:		.320 BA, .534 SLG
Sanders:	.360 BA, .619 SLG
Alou:		.326 BA, .528 SLG

So no.  I will retract my retraction of my statement. :-)

===============================================================================
GO CALIFORNIA ANGELS!
===============================================================================
Nelson Lu (claudius@leland.stanford.edu)
From: z_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: RC/MLV Study
Date: 5 Oct 92 00:04:46 CST
Distribution: na
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University

In article <1992Oct4.175653.337@cs.wayne.edu>, dfl@math.wayne.edu (David Frohardt-Lane) writes:
> 
> RC/27 predicts how many runs a team of that player would score per game.
> Walks would be more valuable in a lineup of 9 Frank Thomas's than they
> would be in a lineup of 9 Scott Livingstone's, because Thomas is better
> at driving in runners than Livingstone.  But in real life, a walk from
> Livingstone is just as valuable as one from Thomas.

	Its just that for Thomas its pretty routine, but for Livingstone its
about as commmon as Ed Hermann stealing a base.

Brandon Cope

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: tedward@cs.cornell.edu (Edward [Ted] Fischer)
Subject: Re: AL Rookie of Year Award?
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 23:42:34 GMT

In article <steph.717803905@pegasus.cs.uiuc.edu> steph@cs.uiuc.edu (Dale Stephenson) writes:
>
>Actually, the statement I challenged was that the worst shortstop was
>more valuable *defensively* than the best centerfielder, which is clearly not
>true.  The value of the player overall is a combination of offense and
>defense.

But that's purely semantics.  Whether you give offensive or defensive
brownie points for playing a hard defensive position is really
irrelevant.  They are still brownie points, and they relate to the
defensive aspect of the game.

>If I were a manager, and I had eight Frank Thomas clones, I would be sorely
>tempted to play them everywhere and let the defense fall apart.  (Well, maybe
>not replacing the catcher.)

Hm.  An interesting hypothetical.  You know, it might just work.  But
I think you'd be better off playing two or three of them, and trading
the rest for every other hot prospect in the league. :-)

Cheers,
-Valentine
-- 
Make outs, not walks!					tedward@cs.cornell.edu
Clemens four Cy Young!
From: z_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: NL ROY: More Fuel for Debate
Date: 30 Sep 92 02:38:25 CST
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University

In article <6479@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>, genetic+@pitt.edu (Dr. Dave) writes:
> Thus spake claudius@leland.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu):
> 
>>Besides, if a lineup will score 5 runs a game, and another will score 4,
>>isn't there a 1-run difference between these lineups?
> 
> Lineups, yes.  People, no.  If 9 Barry Bondses would score 12 runs per game,
> and 9 Terry Pendletons would score 7 runs per game, is Barry Bonds worth 5
> extra runs per game over Pendleton?  Of course not; Bonds's team doesn't even
> score 5 runs per game.  RC/27 multiplies Bonds's offensive advantage times
> itself, 9 times over.  What does that say about actual player values to real
> teams?  Nothing.  It is, at best, an index for ranking players by how much you
> might want to build an offense around them.
>                         

	Well, I would consider Bonds worth 5/9ths a run a game more than
Pendleton (basically just subtract the higher RC/27 from the lower, divide by 9
(unless Bonds can take up 2 batting slots :-)) and that will be the player's 
*rough* advantage in runs/game).
	If you want, you can play around a little further: subtract the
batter's RC/27 from the league average, divide by nine, and multiply by the
number of games he has played. This should give, roughly, how many runs the
player is worth over the course of the year compared to an *average* player.
I really doubt it is worth the trouble -- you can get a similar picture by just
looking at RC/27 and games played.

Brandon Cope

Xref: sparky rec.sport.baseball:28436 soc.culture.japan:8417
From: harkcom@spinach.pa.yokogawa.co.jp (Alton Harkcom)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball,soc.culture.japan
Subject: Re: Japan Central League
Date: 28 Sep 92 01:15:06 GMT
	<Bv6A4u.E8K@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
Followup-To: rec.sport.baseball
Distribution: rec
Organization: Yokogawa Electric Corporation, Tokyo, Japan
In-reply-to: ken@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu's message of 26 Sep 92 06:31:40 GMT

In article <Bv6A4u.E8K@news.cso.uiuc.edu> ken@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu (Ken Primer)
   writes:

 =}    The "hateful" Giants? You mean they aren't held in high regard by
 =}everyone in Japan? Hmmmmm that pops another bubble for me!

   The Giants are popular amongst many Toykoites, but even in Tokyo
there are enough non-fans to make bubble development a rather difficult
task :)  Congratulations on your efforts :)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: schaefer@owlnet.rice.edu (Andrew James Schaefer)
Subject: Roberto Hernandez
Organization: Rice University
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 05:20:48 GMT


Does anyone have any thoughts about any support Roberto Hernandez might 
receive in the American League Rookie of the Year voting?   He certainly
won't get any first place votes, but he seems to be the "Cal Eldred of
relief pitchers."


Just curious,
Andrew
From: epp@mala.bc.ca (Lorne Epp)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Expos logo
Date: 28 Sep 92 18:19:06 -0700
Organization: Malaspina College

In article <CB.92Sep28173954@tamarack13.timbuk>, cb@tamarack13.timbuk (Chris Brewster) writes:
> 
> The thread about the A's logo has emboldened me to make this confession:
> the Expos logo makes no sense to me (that squiggly thing, not the way
> they write the word "expos").  Maybe it's a Rorschach test: the meaning
> you find in it reveals something about you.  (I can almost make it seem
> to spell "expos" and I can almost make it seem to form a capital M.)
> Perhaps someone who is practiced in graphic iconography can explain it
> for me.
> 

I think it's supposed to be a big multicolored "M" with a little red "e".
It's a pretty sad logo.  What I want to know is what made them call the
team "Expos"?  Obviously it's because of Expo 67, but why did they think
anybody would care about that 25 (or 50 or 100) years from then?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lorne Epp                                               epp@mala.bc.ca
From: peppler@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Randy Peppler)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: White-Sox Knocking at second place.
Date: 1 Oct 92 14:18:54 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

In article <20852@plains.NoDak.edu> sivaram@plains.NoDak.edu (Sivaram Hariharan ) writes:
>
>         White-Sox .......... 4 ;  Twins .......... 3
>
>With a win today, the Sox have again pulled to within 1
>game of the Twins in the fight for the second place in
>the west. The Sox have dominated the Twins this season
>and have taken 8 of the 12 games played so far between them.

	Should be 9 of 12.  What happened Tuesday night was ridiculous.
	It should mark Bobby Thigpen's last White Sox hurrah, though...

>Robin Ventura broke a 3-3 tie in the top of the 8th with a 
>lead-off homer.  The Twins had a last shot with Harper
>in the bottom of the 9th saw his homer die off in the park.

	Man, was that close...

>The  Bucs and the Braves repeated and also the jays look like
>to follow suit. Why did not the Twins.......(thats' life eh!!!)

	Dennis Eckersley...
-- 
-------------------------------
| Randy Peppler               |
| Illinois State Water Survey |
| peppler@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu    |
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: sager@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mike.r.sager)
Subject: Re: minnie minoso
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 05:38:43 GMT

In article <92273.231950RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu>, <RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu> writes:
> who is this minnie minoso dude, why did the white sox bring him out of
> a twelve year retirement to give him eight at bats, why did they then
> bring him out of his second retirement four years later to give him
> two more at bats, and are there any plans to bring him back again, now
> in his seventies (well, soon to be) ?

Minnie Minoso is a former White Sox player and coach.  Currently, I
think he still has ties to the team in some other capacity.  They brought
him out of retirement in the seventies so that he could become the first
player to play in five different decades.  They brought him back again
in the eighties to make it six decades.  As for the nineties, they wanted
to bring him back, but Faye Vincent rejected the move.

Mike Sager
From: pcaster@mizar.usc.edu (Dodger)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Belated Post Re Dodgers/Reds Game
Date: 25 Sep 1992 23:14:19 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: mizar.usc.edu


Sorry for not posting this sooner, but I have been sick....stomach
virus...not sick watching the Dodgers, but that would make anyone
sick too :-)  Also, our news server was down for awhile.

When I went to bed last night, the Dodgers had a 4-0 lead.
Ojeda was pitching a bit better than normal, since he hadn't
given't up 2 runs in the first inning.

Roger McDowell relieved Ojeda with the score 4-2.  McDowell was
simply awful.  He didn't record a single out.  Just gave up
a double, triple, walk, single, and 3 runs to give the Reds
a 5-4 lead.  Jim Gott came on to pour some fuel on the fire.
Gott gave up 3 more runs to make it 8-4 Reds.  Steve Wilson
relieved Gott and got the final two outs in the 7th.

The big news for Dodger fans was the first appearance of Pedro
Martinez, who pitched the 8th and 9th innings.
Martinez got three up and three down in the 8th.  In the ninth,
he gave up a walk and a single, but got out of trouble.
So his first two innings were scoreless.  The Dodgers
announced today that Pedro would start one game next week
on the final road trip.

The only thing good about this year is the Dodgers don't have
to worry much about who to protect in the upcoming draft.
I doubt they have 15 players on this team worth protecting.
They really desparately need a bullpen.  As far as I am
concerned, the entire bullpen could go.  Jim Gott is the
only possible exception.  He has pitched ok most of the year.
Starting pitching MAY improve next year IF:

1. Hershiser continues to improve.
2. Ramon Martinez recovers.
3. Pedro Martinez is as good as the Dodgers think.
4. Pedro Astacio shows this year wasn't a fluke.

Even so, this would only make them a .500 team.  The Dodgers still need
a lot of help.  Second base, third base, arguably short stop, players
who can field the ball, and an outfield that can stay healthy and hit.
In short...practically a whole new team :-(

						Dodger

PS I'm relieved that tonight is the last late night game.  I no
longer have to post these depressing losses for the East Coast
crowd...until next year.  Hopefully, the news next year will be better.


Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: tedward@cs.cornell.edu (Edward [Ted] Fischer)
Subject: Re: What is baseball?
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 19:26:37 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.175947.13502@cs.brown.edu> cs169061@cs.brown.edu (Michael Kalman) writes:
>
>          Your perfectly right that the game is roughly 50% total 
>hitting, and 50% total pitching+defense.  But when most people 
>refer to pitching being more important than hitting, what they're
>really talking about is how to best build a winning ballclub.

I've heard these numbers applied in many ways.  Not all of them are
consistent with the interpretation you present.

>The ratio of batters to pitchers is about 3:2 (~10 pitchers 
>per 25 man roster).  Since pitching is by far the most important
>factor in how many runs a team will allow, a team can improve 
>more in the runs-allowed category by adding 'x' number of pitchers
>than it can improve its runs-scored by adding 'x' number of 
>hitters.   

Not sure about this one.  A (starting) pitcher *will* face 30%-50%
more AB in a season than a (full-time) batter will.  But hitting seems
to be more consistent than pitching, and hitters seem less likely to
suffer injuries.  Furthermore, there are often more hitters available
than pitchers in the trade/free agent markets.

>Moreover, when you add extra pitchers to a ballclub, 
>you can bump off the weakest pitchers from those you already
>have. But this doesn't work as well for hitters because 
>acquiring a great hitting firstbasemen doesn't let you
>bump a weak hitting shortstop from the lineup.  

More importantly, the difference between a great pitcher and a
horrible pitcher *is* generally wider than the difference between a
great 1B and a horrible 1B.  Nobody hits as poorly as Clemens'
Opp.OBP/Opp.SLG, and nobody hits as well as Dave "Jeff" Johnson's
numbers.

>         Also, in a short term, playoff situation, a star pitcher,
>who can absorb as much as 1/3 of his team's innings in a 7 game
>series, becomes even more valuable than a great hitter who still
>gets little more than 1/9 of his team's at-bats.

This one is *definitely* true, but only relevant in the playoffs.  You
can win the World Series with one great pitcher and just a *little*
help from his teammates.

Cheers,
-Valentine

-- 
Make outs, not walks!					tedward@cs.cornell.edu
Clemens four Cy Young!
From: u9066624@cc.uow.edu.au (Tippu Hassan)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Bill " TIGER " O Rielly  passes away
Date: 6 Oct 92 04:11:23 GMT
Organization: University Of Wollongong


Bill "tiger " o reilly today passed away in a sydney hospital.

He was a contemporary of Sir Don and was regarded by many as the greatest 
legg-spinner of all time.

Sir Don refered to him the greatest bowler ever.

A sad loss.................

							TIPPU BADSHAH
From: papadopoulos-dimitrios@CS.YALE.EDU (Dimitrios Papadopoulos)
Subject: Re: Worst Aussie side since 1970
Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept., New Haven, CT 06520-2158
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 16:41:30 GMT

In article <Bv7w5G.J5z@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> chalmers@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (David Chalmers) writes:
>In article <1992Sep26.152631.9579@st-andrews.ac.uk> rasf@st-andrews.ac.uk (Russell Anthony Stewart Fiedler) writes:
>
>>Graham Yallop (c)
>>   Picked purely on the basis of his captaincy. His handling of Rodney Hogg
>
>Really much too good a batsman for this team, but OK.
>
>>Gary Cosier
>>   'The forearms, the forearms' was the cry from Bay 13. Very odd batting 
>>   style using no backlift whatsoever. Made a ton on debut I think but it was
>>   all downhill after that. A bit liability in the field and between wickets
>>   get Gary a cap here.
>
>This is a bit unfair.  Not only did Cosier get 109 on his debut against
>the West Indies in 1975-76, he got a magnificent 168 against Pakistan at
>the MCG following summer, in which he thrshed the bowlers all over the
>ground and nearly got a century before lunch.  He also got a few useful
>50's, and was averaging over 50 for quite a while until his career
>trailed off around 1978 with injuries from which he never fully
>recovered.  I also recall him taking a few sharp close-in catches.
>
>>Rob Kerr
>>Rick Darling
>>Peter Toohey
>>David Ogilvie (very close to being picked)
>>David Hookes (The Great White Hope)

I always thought Hookes was a terrific bat who never batted to his potential.
The two sixes he had off Andy Roberts after recovering from a broken jaw
(after being hit by the same bowler)in 1977 {Packer circus}still stand
out in my memory

>>Phil Carlson
>>Dave Gilbert
>>Len Pascoe
I just saw him bowling against India in 1981-he was really quick and
at times overshadowed Lillee and Hogg during that series.There are 
quite a few dismissals of his bowling which stand out in my memory
-the ball that hit Patil on the head,one that had Gavaskar caught
in the gully when Sunny was almost caught in 2 minds whether to play
foeward or back{I remember Benaud saying that sunny didn't do anything 
wrong there}and another one which got Vengi neck and crop just by 
sheer pace were all pure joy to watch.Another thing which I liked 
about him was his bowling action. 

>>Kerry O'Keefe
>>Murray Bennett
>
>Well: Darling, Toohey, Hookes, Pascoe, and O'Keeffe were all at least
>of marginal Test standard, although perhaps none lived up to their
>potential.  The others, OK.  There are plenty of other candidates,
>mostly from the 1977-1987 period, but I can't think of anyone
>who stands out as truly bad, probably because most get dropped fast
>and fade from memory.
>
>-- 
>Dave Chalmers                            (dave@cogsci.indiana.edu)      
>Center for Research on Concepts and Cognition, Indiana University.
>"It is not the least charm of a theory that it is refutable."
From: v079rbu4@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Sanjay Kohli)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Pakistan Vs Rest Of The World X1
Date: 28 Sep 92 21:56:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

Hi,

	The match between Paki's and Rest Of The World X1 was fantastic 
match.  In this match Paki's made 320 in 45 overs; M. Nazar made 149 not 
out and he was the one of the opener.  Haq's played fast inning as he played 
in World Cup.
	From the rest of the World Side, Lara(WI) made 105 with 6 Sixes and 
12 Fours(Not Sure); Sachin Tendulkar made 87 not out with 7 Sixes and 6 
Fours.
	There were Four Indian(The Best) playing for the Rest Of The World 
X1 side; Kapil(Rest Of The World Captain), Tendulkar, Azhar, Chetan.
	Rest Of The World X1 won by 6 Wickets (321 in 37 overs).  I really 
enjoyed watching Lara and Tendulkar beat the hell out of Pakistani Bowlers. 
Most of the Bowlers bowled with Short RunUp except WAQUAR YOUNIS(so called 
Worlds Fastest Bowler); Tendulkar hit 3 Sixes on WAQUAR YOUNIS bowling; 
2 of the were Consecutive Balls and 1 was right after the drinks break 
which was a hook on WAQUAR'S Bouncer.  When Tendulkar was hitting Pakistani 
bowlers all over the ground it became India Vs Pakistan (instead of rest of 
the world) and crowd went wild. 

Cheers

P.S. I loved Tendulkars pull(another six) on Wasim Akram's ball.