HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nissim@mary.fordham.edu (Leonard J. Nissim)
Subject: Re: Collectible Autographed Baseball
Organization: Fordham University
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 21:38:00 GMT
X-Posted-From: mary.fordham.edu
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <2054@deadmin.ucsd.edu>, napier@cs.ucsd.edu (Jim Napier) writes...
> 
>I discovered my mom has a baseball autographed by all (or almost all) the
>1952 Brooklyn Dodgers. Does anyone who collects baseball memorabilia know
>what this may be worth? Thanks.
> 
>-- 
>Jim Napier
>UC San Diego
>jnapier@ucsd.edu
>Jim Napier
>Systems Administration
>Applied Mechanics & Engineering Sciences Dept.
>UC San Diego

Too much for someone of my means to collect.  Just note that it would have the 
autographs of the late Jackie Robinson, Gil Hodges, and Carl Furillo.   HOF-er
Robinson's autograph costs several hundred dollars, and the retail price of 
Furillo's at shows about doubled (from $25 to $50) after he died.  

Among the living HOF-ers, I've seen Duke Snider sign for $40 at shows, and Roy
Campanella charged $225 (he had a special pen-holding glove with which to 
sign).  Presumably an autograph from Roy's pre-injury days is much rarer, and
more valuable.  Pee Wee Reese appears only rarely at shows, but probably gets
a little less than the Duke.  

So an authentic 1952 Brooklyn Dodger ball with those signatures should be up 
in the auction category.  (If it were mine, I wouldn't sell it at any price.) 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leonard Nissim, notorious Dodger fanatic     (nissim@mary.fordham.edu)  
Disclaimer:  "I speak only for myself."   
World Championships:  Brooklyn-----1955   
                      Los Angeles--1959  1963  1965  1981  1988
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: kettler@mitme5.mit.edu (KETTLER, THOMAS R.)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Right to Request a Trade
Summary: Veteran Rights
Date: 2 Sep 92 17:06:00 GMT
Organization: MIT Lab for Nuclear Science
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1

In article <67jn_2j.michaelh@netcom.com>, michaelh@netcom.com (Michael 
Hernandez)  writes...
>In article <1992Sep1.211043.4439@news.iastate.edu> sckelm@iastate.edu (Steven 
C Kelm) writes:
>>Canseco is already signed into a multiyear contract, so Texas doesn't
>>have to worry about his contract. 
>>
>According to the media in the Bay Area, part of the contract
>between the MLBPA and Major League Baseball allows Canseco  the right
>to request a trade at the end of this season(something to do with
>length of service...anyone know about this?), and if he is not
>accommadated, he can become an unrestricted free agent in March
>of 1993.

According to today's Boston Globe in discussing Jody Reed, anyone who has five+
years in the majors may request a trade. The result is that the player forfeits 
the right to free agency for six years and has no control over where he is 
traded. Although it doesn't say so, it is for a player in the midst of a long 
term contract since after six years, a person is entitled to free agency when 
his contract is over.

					Sincerely yours,

					Thomas R. Kettler "Expos Fanatic"
From: rah2t@csissun12.ee.Virginia.EDU (Royce Alan Hernandez)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: ending streaks
Date: 31 Aug 92 15:38:12 GMT
Reply-To: rah2t@csissun12.ee.Virginia.EDU (Royce Alan Hernandez)
Distribution: na,local
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1992Aug30.234949.739@ccsvax.sfasu.edu>,
z_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
|> >>
|> >>i also remember a story of two players competing for a batting
title. the
|> >>teams played a double-header on the last day of the season.  one
batter
|> >>took a .0003 lead after the first game.  he sat out the second
game, while
|> >>his opponent saw 5 walks - one that led to a run.
|> >>
|> > This sounds a lot like another story I heard.  The Giants and the
|> > Cardinals had a doubleheader the last day of the 1939 season, and
Mel Ott
|> > and Johnny Mize were tied at 27 for the NL home run lead.  In the
|> > first game, Mize hit a homer to break the tie, and in the second
game,
|> > Ott drew 5 walks.
|> 

I'd have to say the most famous ending streak occurred in the 1910's I
believe.  Ty Cobb, *everybody`s* favorite player, and Nap Lajoie,
everybody's favorite player, were going neck and neck for the batting
crown up to the last day of the season.  The  two teams ahd a
doubleheader against each other to finish.  As it turns out, the Tigers
themselves were a little fed up with Cobb's ruthless and apparently
selfish attitude of winning another title.  Furthermore, the Indians (I
can't remember who Nap played for) were determined to make sure their
boy won it.  Cobb's had like a 0.005 lead on Lajoie.  So, the Indians
walked Cobb somehthing like 7 times in the double header to do their
part.  As if this was incredible enough, the Tigers told their third
baseman to play deep.  Nap, in turn, thanked the Tigers by responding
with something like 7 bunt hits.  Nap won the title by  a point. 
Unbelievable.  Could you ever imagine the Sox allowing Puckett to do
this to catch Boggs?   Well, now that I think about it....

True Story, look it up.

Royce A Hernandez
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: rising@zoo.toronto.edu (Jim Rising)
Subject: Check-swing Strikes
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 13:21:31 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

It seems to me, if I remember correctly, that when I first learned
about the game they used to call a checked swing a strike if the
batter "broke his wrists," whereas now, as others have stated, 
they use "the head of the bat crosses the plate" criterion.  It
also seems to me that a lot more checked-swing strikes are called
by the 1st and 3rd base umps than in the past.   Even a few years 
this seemed to be a rare event.  Now it is called several times a game.
Any data on this or impressions from others who have been watching
baseball since the 50s or 60s?
-- 
Name:     Jim Rising
Mail:     Dept. Zoology, Univ. Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada    M5S 1A1
UUCP:     uunet!attcan!utzoo!rising 
BITNET:   rising@zoo.utoronto.ca
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Wrigley wind or not: that is the question
Keywords: Wind blowing out of Wrigley
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 00:47:47 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.213014.27468@sunb10.cs.uiuc.edu> epstein@cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>In <1992Aug26.174911.11589@panix.com> spira@panix.com (Greg "Sarcasm Is A Way Of Life" Spira) writes:
>>1) When the wind blows in, Wrigley is a neutral park.
>>2) When the wind blows sideways (most of the time), Wrigley is an excellent
>>hitters' park.
>>3) When the wind blows out, Wrigley has 15-12 games.
>
>Uh, to be a little picky, what's the difference between 2 and 3?  (Is
>15-12 not indicative of good conditions for the hitters?)

15-12 is well beyond excellent.  

Ted "less likely to honeymoon in Iceland than Dave Tate" Frank
-- 
             ......................................................
             ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu | std disclaimers
             the university of chicago law skool, chicago, illinois
             it's log!  log!  log!  it's big, it's heavy, it's wood
From: spira@panix.com (Greg "Sarcasm Is A Way Of Life" Spira)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: CUB'S MADDUX EASY CHOICE FOR CY
Date: 2 Sep 92 20:07:33 GMT
Organization: ?

In <37547@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> demers@cs.ucsd.edu (David DeMers) writes:

>In article <1992Sep1.150405.15602@news.iastate.edu>, jnelson@iastate.edu (Jeremy F Nelson) says:
>>_HOW_ can you possibily say Wrigley field is a hitter's ballpark?  

>Because it *is* a hitter's ballpark, perhaps? (*slap* on the forehead,
>duuh, shoulda thought of that!)

>>How many times has the wind blown out this season? 6? 7?

>Who cares?  Whether or not the wind makes a difference, there
>is more offense at Wrigley than on the road.

>There is more offense at Wrigley than on the road.  What does
>that say about the ballpark?

Well, maybe.

I checked out Cubs stats last night and found:

        OBP    SLG
Home    .311   .371
Away    .293   .337

Now that looks like a normal Wrigley Field spread - maybe a little less
than normal.  Batters are seemingly getting much more of an advantage
from Wrigley than from a normal home park, and its actually more of
an OPS advantage at home than they had last year, when Wrigley was
clearly a great hitters' park.

But:

        ERA    IP   H   R   HR  BB
Home    2.51   588  486 164 32  205
Away    3.42   589  534 224 42  246

Now, this doesn't look like a pitching staff in Wrigley field.

There are three probable reasons for this split:

1) The Cubs have gotten together a bunch of ground ball pitchers, all
of whom are less affected by Wrigley than the average pitcher
2) Random Variation
3) Strange Weather at Wrigley this year.

Now let's speculate as to which of these factors are more
important than the others.  My guess is that 1 and 2 are far more likely
than 3.  Morgan and Maddux, the two biggest causes of the split, are both
extreme ground ball types.  And the offensive split is pretty normal for
Wrigley, leading me to believe that the pitchers just happen to have pitched
better at Wrigley this year for no real reason.

Anybody else want to speculate, or calculate how likely random variation is
to cause this type of split?

Greg 
-- 
  spira@panix.com       "The one-O delivery to Fisk.  He swings.  Long drive,  
 cmcl2!panix!spira      left field!  If it stays fair, it's gone!  Home Run!"  
158-17 Riverside Dr.                     Ned Martin, 10/22/75   
Whitestone NY 11357          (Insert your favorite baseball moment here)
From: demers@cs.ucsd.edu (David DeMers)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Who'll win the NL MVP?
Date: 26 Aug 92 23:52:03 GMT
Distribution: na,local
Organization: =CSE Dept., U.C. San Diego

In article <1992Aug26.153818.1@violet.ccit.arizona.edu> f67700241@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (Greg Franklin) writes:
>Gawd, imagine what would happen if
>rumored Riddoch successor Dick Williams managed Sheffield!  Ack!

Er, I'm the only one calling for ``Dick'' to step back into the
dugout, so far (and my seatmate, from whom the "Martin to the Angels"
line came from).  So thanks for trying to dignify it as "a rumor",
but unless you all write your sports editors and suggest it,
it will remain my 1992 Padre fantasy.

Riggleman will be Riddoch's successor, almost guaranteed, if
Riddoch is fired.


-- 
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
From: jch@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (jeffrey.c.halle)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: RULEBOOK TRIVIA 18
Date: 26 Aug 92 15:53:19 GMT
Organization: AT&T

From article <92238.231210IO20456@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>, by Ryan Robbins <IO20456@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>:
> With the bases empty, the batter hits a shot deep into the hole.
> The second baseman chases the ball down, grabs it, and then wheels
> and throws to first. The throw is wide to the right field side of
> the bag, and the first baseman has to stretch long and hard. He
> blocks the bounding ball with his bare hand, but is unable to
> actually pick the ball up. The ball is on the ground, with the
> first baseman's hand around it. You're the first base umpire. The
> first baseman's foot is on the bag, the throw beat the runner. Is
> the runner safe or out? Does the first baseman have possession of
> the ball, even though it is still on the ground?

Does he have control of it?  If so, the runner is out.  If his hand is merely
resting on it, without controlling it, the runner is safe.  As described,
it certainly is possible that the fielder could have a firm grip on the ball,
but be too splayed out to raise his hand.


BTW, I have a major problem with the way most of these problems are presented.
Most of them require not just knowledge of the rules, but a complete
understanding of what really happened.  The descriptions are too vague and
ambiguous to be able to make such a determination.  This one and the previous
strike three/hit batter one are cases in point.  I am asking the author (as
others have, also) to be much more clear and precise when posting these
problems, or don't post them at all.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: ron@osf.org (Ron Birnbaum)
Subject: Re: Jose Canseco to Texas...
Organization: Open Software Foundation
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 15:25:32 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.124819.7799@cs.cornell.edu>, tedward@cs.cornell.edu (Edward [Ted] Fischer) writes:
|> In article <24378@oasys.dt.navy.mil> kday@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Kevin Day) writes:
|> >
|> >  Sierra for Canseco doesn't surprise me. What surprises me is Jeff
|> >Russell being thrown in the deal. Is Russell a free agent this year
|> >(I think he is)?
|> 
|> Yes, both Russell and Sierra are free agents.  Witt and Canseco are
|> not.  I believe that after the most recent salary inflation, Sierra
|> will get paid *more* than Canseco.  And, IMHO, Canseco is the better
|> player.


  Sure - if he's healthy. But it's not so clear who is more valuable to
 your team now. Of course, Sierra has chicken pox at the moment so it's
 not clear he'll be able to play until October. I had them a couple years
 ago and it took me about a month to get over them - it's a tough disease
 to get rid of when you're old. But, the A's might not really need him until
 the playoffs anyway.

 The major concern I have with Canseco is that he is extermely injury prone.
 And he's a dusruptive influence in the clubhouse. He's also about 5 years older
 than Sierra, isn't he? If I were starting a team right now I'd take Sierra over 
 Canseco for these very reasons.
 
|> Cheers,
|> -Valentine

 Sienfield,
 -Ron

|> -- 
|> Clemens may not win his 4th CY, but he still rules!	tedward@cs.cornell.edu
From: z_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: <None>
Date: 3 Sep 92 21:59:08 CST
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University

In article <1992Sep3.154817.15679@Princeton.EDU>, roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
> In article <1992Sep03.105123.10657@brtph560.bnr.ca> psycho@brtpa25.bnr.ca (Paul Jezioranski) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep3.013519.8911@panix.com>, spira@panix.com (Greg
>>"Sarcasm Is A Way Of Life" Spira) writes:
>>> In <1992Sep02.204409.2123@brtph560.bnr.ca> psycho@brtpa25.bnr.ca (Paul
>>Jezioranski) writes: 
>>> >Any statistic you can come up with is bound to be affected by
>>countless "what
> How do you balance hits and doubles and so on against outs?  OBP.  SLG.
> 
> And you ignore the things like RBI and R, which are *NOT* things "the 
> player himself did."  They are bumbling attempts at accounting that 
> completely mung the relationship  between what the player did and what the
> teammates did.  If Phillips triples and Fielder hits into a 4-3 grounder, 
> Fielder has hurt his team's scoring chances overall, but gets an RBI, same
> as if he's hit a single and *increased* his team's chances.  Does that
> make sense?

	Yes and no. True, he does hurt his team's chances of scoring
*additional* runs in that inning. However, the object of the games is to score
runs. However Fielder manages to get Phillips across the plate is (in general)
good, because it means the Tigers have scored a run. If Fielder singles in
Phillips, and then Tettleton puts one over the fence, even better. But you
cannot guarantee that Fielder, even if he gets on base, will score. A groundout
RBI is better than a popout or strikeout.
 
> 
>>and you can calculate your three numbers from these stats. My
>>contention is that adding external dependencies (such as who and how
>>many were in scoring position, who was pitching, etc) only complicates
>>things and leads people to draw errant conclusions like "if Jose was in
>>his place, he'd have 5000 RBI". 
> 
> But that's not what we *do*.  We simply don't *care* about RBI, because
> they're misleading.  We *know* that Fielder comes up with more people
> in scoring position than just about anyone else; and this is relevant
> to the RBI argument because you *need* that situation before you get a 
> lot of RBI.  Nobody has *ever* led the league in RBI without having a whole
> lot of guys on base in front of him -- and HE DIDN'T PUT THEM THERE.  

	Perhaps instead of RBI, something like 'percentage of runners driven in
from scoring position' could be used (this is somewhat more useful, since
comparing someone who drove in 15% and someone who drove in 20% would have some
meaning).

	I will agree than the RBI stat doesn't mean much, in any context, except
arbitration :-)

Brandon Cope
From: kwh@stiatl.salestech.com (Kurt Hoyt)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Neon Deion Injured?
Date: 1 Sep 92 18:24:33 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Sales Technologies, Inc.

frisbee@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov (frisbee) writes:

>I heard Deion Sanders was injured badly last night. What happened?
>Is he out for the season?
>			frisbee@devvax.jpl.nasa.gov

He played in last night's doubleheader. Don't panic.

-- 
---------------------+ 
Kurt in Atlanta      | "This 'Tamper Proof Bag' is being provided to
kwh@salestech.com    |  ensure the integrity of your 'Software'."
...!uupsi!stiatl!kwh |             -- IBM
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: mard@quads.uchicago.edu (Adrian N. Marden)
Subject: Re: Reds are catching up ...
Reply-To: mard@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 18:14:54 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.065107.4103@babbage.ece.uc.edu> saji@thor.ece.uc.edu (Sandeep  Aji) writes:
>
>
>  Pay back time Atlanta ... we want our lead back .
>  
>  is there any Reds Fans mailing list .... ???  Pls help ..
>
>  Aji.
>
>
>
>  GO REDS !!!!!!!

Reminds me distinctly of my roommate (who only cheers for the Reds when they're
winning). I'll tell you the same thing I told him: The Braves are still in 
first place.
-- 
*	Adrian "Nick" Marden  	    *	"The A's have Dennis Eckersley-	      *
*	mard@quads.uchicago.edu     *	he doesn't blow anyone!"	      *
*	home:(312)-684-1913	    *			-Steve Stone	      *
*	work(?):(312)-702-7269	    *					      *
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: paladin@leland.Stanford.EDU (Jason Gische)
Subject: Re: Pitchers who hit (again)
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 18:51:40 GMT

In article <69TP02Kk1f8M01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> msw10@nepenthe.as writes:
>I went to the Giants and Mets game last night at Candlestick. Dwight Gooden
>was pitching, and when he first came to bat I noticed that he is hitting .280.
>It seems everytime I watch Gooden he is hitting .260-.280. Later in the game,
>Dr. K pulled a pitch over the left field fence. Yet Gooden was still #9 in the
>batting order. My question is, why are pitchers
>always batted last? The Mets had SS Dick Schofield, who was hitting .205 hitting
>second. It seems to me like it would make a lot more sense to bat a pitcher who
>has shown he can *consistently* hit above .250 the same place you would bat
>any other player who bats >.250. The only reasons I could think of were that
>1) everyday players are viewed as too neurotic to be moved from their normal
>position in the batting order every 5th day (which maybe explains why the Giants
>can't hit as Roger Craig rarely sticks with one lineup this year) or 2) it's
>just another stupid tradition managers follow without thinking about.
>
>Any Comments?
>
>Michael Wong
>msw10@amdahl.com



I was at that game too, and wondered much the same thing.  Gooden had the 
highest average of any player in the lineup that night.  He's
been hitting well all season.  The thing I truly didn't understand was
why he was pinch hit for in the top of the eight inning.  I agree with the
decision to take him out.  He had pitched a solid seven innings and the
bullpen needed some work.  But why have Bill Pecota hit for him when Pecota's
hitting under .220 with lousy power?  I would have let him hit, then replaced
him in the bottom of the eigth.

Jason Gische

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: jbs21045@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Joe Sterbenc)
Subject: Mike Morgan: whoa!
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 13:30:30 GMT

I must take back what I said earlier. I was one of the loudest complainers
when the Cubs signed Mikey; I said he'd give them a solid 220 innings of 
subpar pitching.

This week I heard ESPN use Morgan and Cy Young in the same sentence, and
the word Maddux wasn't there.

I think Maddux is easily most deserving, but I heard an amazing stat about
Morgan. Since his first two starts, his season ERA has been below 2.

Sorry I doubted you Mike (just because you never had a season nearly this
good since high school! what gives?!?!)


-- 
============================================================================
Joe Sterbenc - jbs21045@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu & joe-mama@uiuc.edu - U of Illinois
	How many more days will I have this darling account?
============================================================================
From: rstimets@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (robert and stimets)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Conflict of interest (was: Re: Braves/Expos Thurs. Score?)
Date: 28 Aug 92 18:20:49 GMT
Article-I.D.: usenet.BtpHMq.802
Organization: Indiana University

In article <28AUG199211252704@mary.fordham.edu> nissim@mary.fordham.edu (Leonard J. Nissim) writes:
>In article <1992Aug27.232414.27445@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>, 
>marwood@csri.toronto.edu (Simon Marwood) writes...
>>In article <1992Aug28.022011.17229@cis.ohio-state.edu> 
>ellis@tomato.cis.ohio-state.edu (steven lawrence ellis) writes:
>>>Does anyone know this score?  Is the game over?  Go Expos/Reds!!!
>>>
>>>Stv
>> 
>>As of 11:22 eastern time, the game is still in a rain delay, and does not
>>seem to have started. They will likely (obviously) wait as long as possible
>>for Tropical Depression Andrew to pass by before calling the game, as each
>>game is important to both teams, and the two don't meet again this year.
>> 
>>Simon
>> 
>
>It was rained out.  Presumably, it will be played on Monday, October 5, if
>and only if it is needed to decide a pennant race.  
>
>Doesn't this create a potential conflict-of-interest?  
>Entirely hypothetical situation:  
>It is Oct. 5.  The Braves are the NL West winners, having clinched on Sept. 30.
>The Pirates have played all 162 games, and the Expos 161 (due to this rainout).
>The Expos are 1/2 game behind the Pirates; if they win the make-up game with   
>the Braves, then the Pirates must play a 1-game play-off.  **The Pirates are 
>all healthy, but the Expos have been hit by injuries to 3 key players in the 
>last week.**  Do the Braves really want to win?  Will they use their best 
>starting line-up?  Isn't there a huge temptation to let the injury-ridden team
>win?  

On the other hand, the Braves have had a pretty rough time recently against
the Expos.  Furthermore, the Expos may have also clinched it by this time,
the Braves needing a win to force a playoff.  Felipe doesn't really care
who he plays in the ALCS so he'll slack off on the last game just to force
that extra Reds/Braves game.  

But all this discussion only evolves because the NL has 12 teams and the last
several weeks of the season can be spent on intra-divisional play.  This 
obviously isn't the case in a league with 14 teams.  So I don't know:
any potential conflict-of-interest scenerios in the AL this year?

A second question:
would they play the game if there is some record at stake, or if, say Gary
Sheffield gets traded Montreal and is still shooting for the triple-crown?
(Apparently not since you say <=> )

RStimets