HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lbr@holos0.uucp (Len Reed)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Stupidest rule in baseball (perhaps a new one)
Date: 17 Dec 92 14:50:21 GMT
Organization: Holos Software, Inc.

In article <BzDFxH.MMF@cs.uiuc.edu> silber@cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>
>
>>Anyway, this sure seems an odd choice for "dumbest rule in baseball."  At
>>the very least, it seems to me, a candidate for this crown should be
>>something that, if changed, wouldn't fundamentally recast the game.  Maybe
>>the infield fly rule, or fan interference, or running on a dropped third
>>strike.
>
>Maybe fan interference, but the other two examples you named are important.

Important?  Do you think offense would expand or contract drastically
if we dropped the IFR or the running-on-a-third-strike rule?  I sure
don't.  But make a foul with 2-stikes a strikeout or make any foul
a non-event and you won't even recognize batting averages and ERAs.

>Without the infield fly rule, the following scenario exists:

Lord, I know what the IFR is for.  I wasn't proposing that it was dumb.
I just used it as an example of a rule that was marginal to the game,
rather than at its heart.  Drop the IFR, and the game changes very little.
Change the 2-strike foul rule and the whole batter/pitcher matchup
changes drastically.
From: gajarsky@pilot.njin.net (Bob Gajarsky - Hobokenite)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: yanks/giants rumour, and signings.
Date: 14 Dec 92 21:09:23 GMT
Organization: Somewhere in Hoboken


Rumoured trade - bam bam, silvestri, and pat kelly to the giants
 for matt williams.

if true, robby thompson is gone from the giants, silvestri would go
 to the outfield (or bam bam would), and the giants would come out
 nicely. the yankees would, as well, since williams would give them
 a proven bat , and clear up the second base/shortstop mess.

bob melvin signs 2 years with the red sox.  why???  eric wedge is
 ten times the player melvin is, at 1/10 the cost.

mike bielecki signed a AAA contract with theindians.  how the mighty 
 have fallen.

boggs is down to the dodgers or yankees as his choice..- bob
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: dhirmes@hamp.hampshire.edu
Subject: Abbott/Snow + Co. 
Organization: Hampshire College
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 04:11:01 GMT

I was surprised to see the Jim abbott deal get so little press. I thought it
was the biggest deal of the winter. Is it just the area I'm in, or does no one
care? I wanna know what Whitey and Co. are saying about J.T. and the boys. How
good does anyone think Springer and Neilson are? I saw both pitch and i was
impressed, although I beleive that Springer could improve. 
Or did I just miss all this talk before the meeting started the massive free
agent signings et al?
Jon Lejon Levy
Hampshire College

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: nlu@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu)
Subject: Re: Brian Dorsett (was Re: Who are these new Pirates ?)
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 19:36:04 GMT

In article <840@blue.cis.pitt.edu> psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:
>
>31?  That can't be right, can it?  I have no reference to say otherwise
>but the guy I saw last spring training was no way near 31.  

Looks can be deceiving (much like Carney Lansford's defense).

Dorsett was born on 4/9/61.

===============================================================================
GO CALIFORNIA ANGELS!
===============================================================================
Nelson Lu (claudius@leland.stanford.edu)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: epstein@cs.uiuc.edu (Milt Epstein)
Subject: Re: All-Henderson Team;All-Jewish Team
Reply-To: epstein@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 17:20:32 GMT

In <15DEC92.12341126@vax.clarku.edu> hhenderson@vax.clarku.edu writes:

>Ted Frank writes:
>
>>How about an all-Jewish team?
>> 
>>C: Moe Berg
>>1B: Hank Greenberg
>>2B: Rod Carew
>>SS:
>>3B:
>>OF: John Lowenstein
>>OF:
>>OF:
>>P: Sandy Koufax
>>P: Steve Stone
>>P: Ken Holtzmann
>> 
>>There have got to be others, that's just off the top of my head.

How about Mike Epstein (no relation :-)?  He played 1B, I believe --
maybe he or Hank can move to the outfield :-).


>The latest issue of Elysian Fields Review (wonderful baseball magazine,
>by the way) has a cover story on Jews and baseball -- playing it,
>writing about it, etc.  They discuss Jewish players.  Unfortunately
>a friend of mine has absconded with the magazine and I can't refer
>to it...
>
>How about Ron Blomberg?  I seem to recall he had the nickname of
>"Superjew".  

It certainly sounds like a Jewish name, although I don't recall if he
was Jewish.  And he was the first DH, right?  So, he'd be good for the
team :-).

Another player with a Jewish sounding name that I'm not sure was
Jewish was Art Shamsky.

How about Rod Carew?  I remember hearing that he was Jewish (or
perhaps just married to a Jewish woman).  Or was that just an "urban
legend" (like about Sammy Davis Jr.)?


>I don't believe that John Lowenstein is Jewish.  Stop me if I'm
>wrong.  I think I read that in one of Tom Boswell's Oriole pieces.

I seem to remember hearing that too.

-- 
Milt Epstein
Department of Computer Science
University of Illinois
epstein@cs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: clgs11@vaxa.strath.ac.uk
Subject: Re: more jays rumors
Organization: Strathclyde University VAX Cluster
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1992 11:27:44 GMT

In article <1992Dec8.145406.2921@athena.mit.edu>, cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
> 
> more scuttlebutt (sp?) from my source in TO:
> 
> 1. the jays are very close to signing cone, according to what he has heard.
>    (they better be -- juan can't win *all* the game).

He`s just signed with KC Royals.


> 
> 2. the jays are apparently interested in moving kelly gruber. wow. i thought
>    they'd *never* get rid of him. i say great -- provided they have someone
>    to play third.

He`s just been sent to California (I think !!!!)


> 
> 3. regarding #2 -- he says there is some talk about playing molitor at third
>    if gruber is traded. this kind of scares me from a defensive perspective,
>    and also injury-wise to molitor. anyone out there have some thoughts on 
>    playing molitor at third?


Why are the Jays giving up good solid Defense in place of yet another big bat
??



> 
> 4. molitor apparently cost $4M/year. the contract is for 3 years with
>    an option (i think the club's) for a 4th.
> 
> that's all for now
> 
> --
> charles
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: gotribe@cbnewse.cb.att.com (richard.g.barry)
Subject: Re: Atlanta pitching
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 18:33:29 GMT

In article <texdude.724523154@cs1.bradley.edu>, texdude@cs1.bradley.edu (Philip Allen) writes:
> 
> I have to admit - the Braves rotation is one of the best I've seen
> in a long time.  But then, I thought the Reds had the best team I'd 
> seen in a long time too (last year).  =)
> 
> But still - this rotation looks awfully scary.
> 
> 
> Phil Allen

Looks can be deceiving.  The Braves staff is the same as in '92 except
the Maddux replaces Leibrandt (who had a great season with 15 wins!)

Avery only won 11 games and had a 129/70 K/BB ratio - not that great.
Expect the same in '93.

Glavine won 20 games with a 129/71 ratio.  Expect his numbers to drop
in '93 (i.e less than 20 games).

Maddux won 20 games with a great ratio.  He's the best pitcher in the
NL, but if he has a GREAT year in '93, it won't be much better
than what Liebrandt had in '92.

Smoltz won 15 games with a great ratio.  How did he lose 12 games?
Expect him to repeat his '92 numbers in '93.

Pete Smith.  Who can figure him out?  He pitched good last year
but I'm not impressed with his ratio so I wouldn't expect much
out him.

So overall, this staff should probably do just as good as it did
in '92, which isn't bad, but it's not any kind of All-World staff.
Not even close.  Cincinnati's is just as good.  Plus they've got
a great closer.

Rich
barry@ihlpe.att.com
From: gajarsky@pilot.njin.net (Bob Gajarsky - Hobokenite)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Minor league Encyclopedia
Date: 18 Dec 92 02:25:44 GMT
Organization: Somewhere in Hoboken

jiohn - can you post a revciew of it, the encyclopedia, that is?

i was under the impression that it only listed leaders, which 
 would make it not quite as good as the hype...

- bob gaj
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: sandoval@stsci.edu
Subject: Re: Red Sox and Padres swap players
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 21:01:25 GMT

In article <42378@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, demers@cs.ucsd.edu (David DeMers) writes:
> 
> 
> |>  Problem is more, where will Plantier play?
> 
> This is a problem?? Who was going to play LF, DJ Dozier?
> 
> Plantier is the starting LF. He is unlikely to lose the job as there
> was not much competition to begin with (just Darrell Sherman, really).
> 
> Dave
> -- 
> Dave DeMers			 ddemers@UCSD   demers@cs.ucsd.edu
> Computer Science & Engineering	C-014		demers%cs@ucsd.bitnet
> UC San Diego					...!ucsd!cs!demers
> La Jolla, CA 92093-0114	(619) 534-0688, or -8187, FAX: (619) 534-7029

  Dave,

   Good to see a San Diegan here!  I just moved to Baltimore from San Diego
about 3 months ago.  Padre news is sparse here, so I'll be relying on the
Net for most of my news.

   I have to agree with you about this trade.  If Plantier can rebound to
his 91 form (which is entirely possible), then the Pads should have a pretty
good team.  I guess I'll have to travel to Philly to see them...

    John
    UCSD alumni :)

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: kbanaian@bernard.pitzer.claremont.edu (King Banaian)
Subject: Re: '93 Royals Infield?
Organization: Pitzer College
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 21:49:58 GMT

Joe M Leonard writes:

>What is the contract status of Wally Joyner vs. the Royals - I thought
>he signed a 1-year contract last year, and have no memory of a renewal...

He signed a four-year deal during the season, for I think $4m/yr.  He was 
happy.  This is a case, I think, where the Royals might have saved a few 
bucks by waiting;  I mean, could there really be that much demand for this 
guy?

>
>If he's signed, this makes the infield:
>
>1B	Joyner
>2B	Lind
>SS	Gagne
>3B	Jefferies

Aside from Jefferies, looks like a second-division infield to me...
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: "michael berger" <michael.berger@canrem.com>
Subject: joe carter and others
Reply-To: "michael berger" <michael.berger@canrem.com>
Organization: Canada Remote Systems
Distribution: rec
Date: 12 Dec 92 16:28:39 EST

I address this comment to all those devotees of statistical analysis of
baseball who continually malign joe carter and his signing by the
toronto blue jays.  I have read many messages which say joe carter is
not half the player rickey henderson is and other disparaging comments.

Now these comments may be true and rickey henderson is undoubtably
blessed with much talent, however I see a problem with these analyses.
Rickey Henderson is perhaps the most self-centered miserable baseball
player in history.  I took great enjoyment watching him screw up on
numerous occasions in the ALCS.  People have said that a team of nine
Hendersons would outscore nine Carters by some large margin using
something called RC/27 with which I am not entirely familiar.  Anyone
who believes this is missing a key truth about teams and all
organizations.  Their performance is rarely equal to the sum of their
component parts.  The concept of team chemistry has been the difference
between the Blue Jay teams of 1992 vs <1991.  Nine Hendersons would not
score all those runs because the whole clubhouse would be at eachothers'
throats, chiefly because only one of them could bat leadoff.

While I may be exaggerating, my central point is that some players like
Joe Carter contribute with more than just run production.  What is Devon
White's value to the pitching staff's confidence beyond the number of
errors he makes.  And those statistics about range appear dubious
considering Roberto Alomar seems to rank at the bottom for second
basemen.

If you really believe the Jays should not have resigned Carter, name
their alternative for replacing his production on the team.  Sierra was
the only run-producing outfielder left and his attitude rivals
Henderson's.

To all those Brewer fans, I will just add that it (the total dismantling
of your team) could not have happened to a nicer group of people.  Why,
when you were solidly in contention, were you not selling out your
stadium.

Just my $0.02 worth.

Michael Berger.
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
From: paul@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Paul R Krueger)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Two out of three gone (Ripkens that is)
Date: 11 Dec 1992 22:12:24 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4
Originator: paul@csd4.csd.uwm.edu

Just heard that Baltimore signed Harold Reynolds and released Billy "I live
off the family name" Ripken. Rejoice O's fans.

--salty

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: spira@panix.com (Greg "Sarcasm Is A Way Of Life" Spira)
Subject: Re: NL East analysis.k
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 22:05:45 GMT
Organization: Boo!  

In <1992Dec17.151842.20367@cs.cornell.edu> tedward@cs.cornell.edu (Edward [Ted] Fischer) writes:


>Hah!  Vince Coleman shouldn't even be ahead of Derrick May!  I know he
>managed a .355 OBP last year, but that was a clear fluke.  And he
>couldn't slug his way out of a wet paper bag!  I'd drop Coleman to
>fifth place here...  Maybe third if he gets injured and the Mets play
>Boston.

While I'm really the last person on Earth to defend Vince Coleman, I
really do think that, on the rare occassions he appeared on the field
for the Mets, he really was making a much stronger effort to walk than
he had in his last few years in St. Louis.  If you extend his 2 years
worth of plate appearances to a full season for a leadoff hitter (650
pas - don't laugh too hard here), he projects to about 75 walks.

Greg
From: lbr@holos0.uucp (Len Reed)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Stupidest rule in baseball (perhaps a new one)
Date: 17 Dec 92 15:58:30 GMT
Organization: Holos Software, Inc.

In article <1992Dec16.154456.15985@walter.cray.com> mb@cray.com (Maynard Brandt) writes:

=I can't recall ever hearing of someone being called out for deliberately
=hitting a 2 strike pitch foul, although it has no doubt happened quite
=often.  Is that still the rule?  Anyone know of it ever being enforced
=in recent (post 1960) history?

The rule has never been in effect in as long as I've followed the game.
It is certainly not in the current rulebook.
From: snichols@adobe.com (Sherri Nichols)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: All-Time Oakland A's Team
Date: 18 Dec 92 17:04:00 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated

In article <17DEC199212323537@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu> doctor8@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu (Jason Abner Miller) writes:
>	The problem is, it *wasn't* that amazing; it was only because
>Billy pitched them so bleeping often that they put up sort of OK win
>totals.  Rick Langford?  Wasn't he the guy who, in 240 innings, gave up
>about 280 hits and didn't strike out 100 men?  That's bad in any language,
>no matter how many wins he got, because he also lost about 15 in 1980.

It's time to buy a new reference book, Jason; yours has all sorts of
mistakes.  In 1980, Rick Langford gave up 276 hits in 290 innings, while
walking 64 and striking out 102, and posted an ERA of 3.26 and a record of
19-12.  While that doesn't make him a Cy Young candidate, if that's bad,
your definition of bad is as strange as your definition of mediocre.  

Langford also threw 28 complete games.  He faced an estimated 34.5
batters/start, 

>	Steve McCatty might have been good (the first pitcher ever to
>throw a no-hitter for me in a Strat-O-Matic game!), but he was always
>hurt.

Yeah; after a couple of years of pitching for Martin.

>	Brian Kingman and Matt Keough were also just average, and turned
>bad after Martin finished with them. 

> The only one I'm not sure about
>is Mike Norris ... he might have been good at one time.  Didn't he have
>a drug problem or something

Norris posted a 2.54 ERA in 1980, going 22-9, giving up 215 hits in 284
innings, walking 83 and striking out 180 and throwing 24 complete games as
a 25 year old, coming off the previous season when he had suffered a hand
injury.  

Whether these guys were or would have been great is certainly questionable,
but Martin's abuse of them seems pretty clearcut.

Sherri Nichols
snichols@adobe.com
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: scooby@prelude.cc.purdue.edu (Charles Mcwilliams)
Subject: Re: Maddux v Liebrandt
Organization: Purdue University
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 00:59:09 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.182318.16238@midway.uchicago.edu>  
thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
> >Otherwise, their team is pretty much
> >the same as last year (weak offensively at C, 1B, 2B, SS).
> 
> I don't know which Braves team you've been watching, but Blauser's the
> second-best offensive shortstop in the National League.  The other thing
> to note is that "weak" is a relative concept, and only two or three  
teams
> didn't have weak catching in the NL last year.
> 
> >The team that is really improved is
> >Cincinnati.  They're strong at virtually every offensive position,
> >have a good starting staff and a great closer ('course, they still
> >have to contend with Marge).  Put your money on the Reds in '93...
> 
> Really?  Who do they have at catcher? 
Look for Joe Oliver to continue to improve...He had a monster strech
during the last half of the season, having a career high in average
at .270 with 10 homers and 57 rbi...

> 
> And who do they have behind the 450 innings they'll get from Rijo and
> Smiley?  Smoltz, Avery and Smith are all better than the Reds #3 
pitcher.

Aren't you forgetting a guy named Belcher?   Sure he had an off year, but
I'm sure he'll return to his old form with the improved run support he'll  
be getting :)  

> The Reds gave 24 starts last year to pitchers with ERAs above 5.  That's
> a pretty big hole to come back from, unless Pugh is for real...

Browning is starting to look aweful meaty to NL hitters, isn't he? :)
Pugh looks aweful good to me...Saw him at Riverfront last year against the  
Padres and he shut them down.  He's for real IMHO,

--
Charlie McWilliams
Purdue University
scooby@minuet.cc.purdue.edu
Go Reds!!
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Brian Dorsett (was Re: Who are these new Pirates ?)
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:47:44 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.171125.16176@leland.Stanford.EDU> myles@leland.Stanford.EDU (Myles Sussman) writes:
>In article <826@blue.cis.pitt.edu> psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:
>>Just for the record, Brian Dorsett is no longer a Pirate.  I'm not sure
>>of the circumstances surrounding his departure (and I'm pretty disgusted
>>that he's gone) but I'm nearly 100% sure I saw that the Marlins had signed 
>>him last week.
>
>   According to the San Jose Mercury News, he signed with the
>Cincinnati Reds.  Why is everyone so excited about him?  My Baseball
>America says he'll be 31 next year.  I doubt that his minor league
>performance will translate to the majors.

Let's see, he's been in the organizations of the Indians, the Angels,
the Yankees, the Padres, the Pirates, and now the Reds, and has been called
up to the majors for all but the last two.  Only got 96 PA to prove himself,
but hit for about a 500 OPS.  His stats outside the PCL (a hitters' league)
have been decidedly mediocre for AAA, and even within the PCL at Tacoma,
he wasn't all that good.  

My GABSB says he'll be *32* next year.  Not a prospect.  I wouldn't put
him on my expansion team.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
From: genetic+@pitt.edu (Dr. Dave)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Baseball finances query
Date: 15 Dec 92 20:27:44 GMT
Organization: Department of Industrial Engineering

Could someone answer some or all of the following questions for me?

	1. What is the revenue-sharing cheme currently used for gate take
	   and MLB merchandising revenue?  (E.g. is it 50/50, 60-home/
	   40-visitor, or what?)

	2. What fraction (or total $) of baseball's annual revenue currently
	   comes from local TV contracts?

Using numbers from a year or two ago, and making some conservative guesses,
we get the following:

	Total annual revenues for MLB:	$1.5 billion
	Total annual player payroll:	$600 million
	Non-payroll expenses:		$150 million or less

Thus, we have 26 teams (then) clearing $750 million or more in profits every
year.  That's about $29 million per team per year.

Now, what would have to be true in order for there to be, say, four teams
actually losing money in a given year?  Let's say only 4 teams below break-
even, with total losses of $10 million.  That leaves $760 million split 22
ways among the remaining teams, or an average of $35 million in profits.

What kind of revenue-sharing of local TV revenue would be necessary to balance
the competitive field?  Let's suppose that 1/3 ($500 million) of all revenues
are from local TV contracts.  Let's suppose further that this money starts
getting split 70/30, with the home team keeping 70%.  As a result, $150M goes
into a pool, to be split evenly among the teams at $5.8 million per team.
Here's what would happen to local TV revenues of teams:

	Before		After
	------		-----
	  $0		$5.8M
	 $2M		$7.2M
	 $4M		$8.6M
	 $10M		$12.8M
	 $15M		$16.3M
	 $20M		$19.8M
	 $30M		$26.8M
	 $50M		$40.8M
	 $70M		$54.8M
	 $100M		$75.8M

Now, assuming that the other $1 billion in revenue is shared evenly, that's
$38.5 M per team.  So, we're looking at $44.8M in revenues for even a team
that has *no* local TV contract, and at least $47M in revenues for a team with
a small local TV contract.  The Yankees are still looking at > $75M per year.
Big-market teams still have incentives to pursue larger contracts, while small
market teams can compete for free agents and remain solvent.  ($45 million is
enough to pay everyone on your 24-man roster $1.5M per year and still have
$9M left in profits; average major league salaries run just under $1 million
these days...)

Clearly, even *mild* sharing of local TV revenues would remedy all of the 
problems in distribution of the wealth that are currently plaguing baseball.
There's nothing new or communistic about the idea: they've been doing it for
decades with gate receipts, merchandising, and national TV money.  After all,
it takes two to tango, and nobody's gonna pay big bucks to watch the Yankees
take BP all summer on MSG network.


-- 
       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