HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kettler@mitme5.mit.edu (KETTLER, THOMAS R.)
Subject: Re: CUB'S MADDUX EASY CHOICE FOR CY
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Organization: MIT Lab for Nuclear Science
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 19:42:00 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.231559.22452@ncar.ucar.edu>, 
baseball@catch-the-fever.scd.ucar.edu (Greg writes...
> 
>September is often dominated by pitching, as the '69 Cubs learned
>from the Mets.  I hope the Cubs management has not given up on the
>players chances of catching the Pirates.  Besides, there is little
>to be gained in bringing up Villanueva, Walton, etc. for another
>look.  Last Saturday, on CBS, the announcers briefly noted that
>the NL East race could be decided by the 4 remaining games between
>the Pirates and Expos.  The Cubs have 6 games left with the Pirates,
>and 6 with the Expos, of which 6 occur in the last week at Wrigley
>Field.  If the Cubs, (and its a BIG IF with their offense), before
>this last week, make up 4 of the 8 games by which they trail the
>Pirates now, things will get very interesting...  Even so, it looks
>like the Braves juggernaut will stop any of them from reaching the
>WS.
> 

First, the Cubs have a losing record against the Expos, including at Wrigley. 
Second, I guess you didn't notice that the Expos finished with an 8-4 record 
against the "juggernaut Braves" including only one loss at Fulton County so it 
is not a given that the Braves will make to the World Series or even the NLCS 
since although the Reds are 6 1/2 games behind, they using the same logic as 
above, have six games with Atlanta which has been slumping of late. Furthermore,
three of the losses tagged to Glavine this year have been against the Expos 
and he is only something like 3-10 lifetime against Montreal. Hence, I assume 
that Braves fans would much prefer to play Pittsburgh or any other NL East team 
than Montreal in the NLCS.

Although we have talked at length about W-L records for pitchers so 3-10 is not 
very important, I also think that Glavine has a high ERA against Montreal. Does 
anyone have the info to back up my beliefs.

					Sincerely yours,

					Thomas R. Kettler "Expos Fanatic"
From: jch@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (jeffrey.c.halle)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Boggs Toronto bound?
Date: 27 Aug 92 14:41:05 GMT
Organization: AT&T

From article <lws.10@sparc1.ee.ncku.edu.tw>, by lws@sparc1.ee.ncku.edu.tw (WenHsiang Lin):
> In article <1992Aug26.120739.2125@merrimack.edu> desmondw@merrimack.edu writes:
>    Boggs cannot hit anymore outside Fenway Park. I do think the Great
> Green Wall has been helping him much for his BA. In addition, Boggs

If you look at his home/away stats for this year, you'll be surprised.
His away average is around where it always is.  His Fenway average is
way DOWN this year (around .220, I believe).  So much for the Monster's help.
From: kbos@carina.unm.edu (Kurt Bose "of Biscayzee")
Subject: Re: Managing in the AL
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 92 03:54:00 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <BtGp23.7y7@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> rstimets@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (robert and stimets) writes:
>
>TED, TED, TED!
>I've never had the resolve to contradict one of your posts but this one
>deserves some attention:
>
>   Knowing when to pull a pitcher goes well beyond whether he's batting
>   or not.  A pitcher who's been dominating and is at least competent with the 
>   bat can and probably would stay in the game to BUNT a runner over:
>   a talent that is sorely missed in the AL.

"Competent with the bat", of course being a talent which is sorely missed in
the NL.  When the OPS of the best-hitting pitching staff in the NL barely 
clears .400, I find it amusing to see any NL fan seriously denigrate ANY AL
talent.  Seriously.  The reason NL pitchers who are "competent" with the bat
bunt runners over is because that's all they *CAN* do.  At least an AL manager
can take that ninth batter and actually make strategic decisions.  Pretty safe
bet that Doug Drabek won't be swinging for the fences...

>      Secondly, in a tight game the NL manager has to consider pitcher 
>      effectiveness FIRST when deciding to leave him in when the opposing team
>      is at bat.  He always must consider the batting order in order to make
>      double-switches, and score/inning/pitcher to the plate all come into
>      play in less close games or when his team is batting.

Er...right.  Seventh inning, team trailing, pitcher to bat.  Unless you've got
Atlanta's pitching staff, yu're going to pull the starter most of the time,
especially if you're at home.  And of course, the master of tough decisions, the
double switch.  I have yet to find a double switch that baffled me.  One that
made me gag because of its stupidity, many times.  But one that made me sit up
and yell, "That manager's a GENIUS!!!"?  Sure....and the Indians are a budding
dynasty (watch Nick come out of the woodwork with blood on his mind...)

> Third:  it's abundantly clear you only follow the Red Sox and their opponents
> but that's all right (I follow the Reds and theirs).  To make mention
> of this, though in an AL(DL)/NL(Turf) argument is specious at best.
>
OK, I follow LA and Albuquerque, but I'm a lifelong Orioles booster.  So I get
both sides.  So what?  I know I can sure manage without a DH a hell of a lot 
easier than I can with one.  I'm also a lot cooler, what with all those pitcher
whiffs and all...

-- 
Kurt Bose (as in Daisy, not Rose) - kbos@carina.unm.edu - I'm not the AntiChrist
I AM the AntiWoofer. - Junior Stathead{tm} - I'm a shutmouthed, selfless idiot!!
Latest Attempted Compiler of the R.S.BB FAQ - Now Accepting Submissions...(hint)
Have you hugged a Dan Gladden fan today? - Dave Rossing : .531/54/214 at Denver!
From: demers@cs.ucsd.edu (David DeMers)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Baseball and Billions
Date: 27 Aug 92 22:46:50 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: =CSE Dept., U.C. San Diego

In article <1992Aug27.180411.18814@cis.ohio-state.edu> miked@pterodactyl.cis.ohio-state.edu (Michael [Wendy Whiner] Davey) writes:
>In article <1992Aug27.170710.3110@adobe.com> snichols@adobe.com (Sherri Nichols) writes:
[deleted...]

>	There is no obvious and objective definition of what the game ought
>to be.  And your wrong, your a baseball fan and I disagree with you and other
>people I know who are baseball fans. I just do not think that your 
>"don't spend money on what you don't like" factor is realistic. I 
>have no choice but to sit in an ashtray shaped stadium with artificial turf 
>when I attend a Reds game, and many fans that I 
>have talked to liked Crosley Field better, and do not like Riverfront, but
>we still go to games and spend money. 

So, the cost of going to a game in terms of dollars and annoyance
at the ballpark or whatever else is offset by your enjoyment of
going to a ballgame?  The management knows that it's putting
out an adequate product, because you are buying it.

...


>>What are the tenets and traditions of "The Game" that are important, and
>>should be preserved?
>	This is not the issue. And your still trying to comparet the past to
>the present do defend the present, and I have never invoked the past as
>representative of how things should be.

What is it you *DO* want?

...


>>No, I'm not arguing that at all.  I've made *no* statement in this
>>discussion about whether the state of the game was good or bad.  You've
>>claimed that the state of the game is bad, and it's because of the owners.
>>I'm trying to get you to be more specific about what about the state of the
>>game is bad, and *why* it's bad, and who decides it's bad.

>	No, but you contiually try to invoke the past to compare it to
>the present to defend the owners. The owners are not solely responsible for
>the problems affecting the game. But they do play a role and without taking
>away some, I said SOME of their power, they are never held accountable.

OK, what's bad about the game?  High salaries?  Ticket prices?
Lousy stadiums?

>...it would be nice if a strong commissioner 
>could emerge to help initiate the type of restructuring that is going to be
>needed.

What is needed?
-- 
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
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: timlin@spot.Colorado.EDU (Michael Timlin)
Subject: Re: DAVID CONE TO BLUE JAYS
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 17:45:41 GMT

sinhaa@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Anand Sinha) writes:

>In article <1992Aug31.162943.13131@cs.cornell.edu> tedward@cs.cornell.edu (Edward [Ted] Fischer) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug31.133928.28907@sni.ca> dave@silver.sni.ca (Dave Till) writes:
>>>
>>>The Jays are a staggeringly wealthy team.  They draw 4+ million a year,
>>>have a nation-wide TV contract, and rich owners (90% Labatt beer,
>>>10% Bank Of Commerce).  This is the first year that they have really
>>>flexed their financial muscles.
>>
>>The Jays may have a nation-wide TV contract, but the Yankees have a
>>larger potential audience.  After all, the population of Canada isn't
>>*that* much larger than the population of NYC.

>Well probably double anyhow.  25million or so Canadians at the last count.
>How many people in NYC? 12? 13 million? But, the Yankees do have a larger
>audience, as there are Yankee fans (and haters) everywhere.  Canadians
>can relate to this...it's known as the Montreal Canadiens effect in Canada :-).

That's 12 or 13 million in NYC proper, right?  I don't know what the
population of the whole area is but it's BIG.  Chicago is about 2.7 million
but Cook County (contains Chicago) is something like 5.5 million and
Chicagoland includes a lot of area around Cook. 

Mike Timlin
timlin@spot.colorado.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: nissim@mary.fordham.edu (Leonard J. Nissim)
Subject: Ugliest *ever* (was: Re: Ugliest Man in Baseball??)
Organization: Fordham University
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 13:39:00 GMT
X-Posted-From: mary.fordham.edu
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1SEP92.20311267@vax.clarku.edu> hhenderson@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>I had thought that Randy Johnson was the ugliest active player
>[...]
>
>Heather
>HHENDERSON@vax.clarku.edu

Bill James, in "The Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract" (1985) gives the 
ugliest player(s) in each decade, in his opinion:

1870's: Charlie Gould
1880's: Jim Whitney
1890's: Fred Tenney
1900's: Hal Chase, Addie Joss
1910's: "Rabbit" Maranville
1920's: Joe Martina
1930's: Ernie Lombardi, "Suitcase" Seeds
1940's: Ewell Blackwell
1950's: **Don Mossi** (**Ugliest of All-time**)
1960's: Bill Skowron, Dick Donovan
1970's: George Foster

A picture of Mossi is on page 219 of the hard-cover edition, and he is ugly 
enough to frighten small children.  James' description:
     "Mossi's ears looked as if they had been borrowed from a much larger 
species, and reattached without proper supervision.  His nose was crooked, 
his eyes were in the wrong place, and ... he had no neck to speak of, just
a series of chins that melted into his chest."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: kiviat@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Brian Kiviat)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Why aren't baseball player actors?WHO CARES!
Date: 1 Sep 92 16:27:37 GMT
Reply-To: kiviat@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Brian Kiviat)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

I thought this was rec.sport.baseball not rec.acting.bad.tv.shows
No back to our regularly scheduled talk about baseball.
From: genetic+@pitt.edu (Dr. Dave)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: <None>
Date: 4 Sep 92 16:20:36 GMT
Organization: Department of Industrial Engineering

Thus spake z_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu:
>
>	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. 

Not quite.  This misses a key factor, which is the same key factor missed by
the mediots (who tend to make this same argument).  

The problem is that, to varying degrees, some runs are much more "in the bank"
already when the batter in question comes to the plate.  If you've got a man
on third and nobody out, that guy is going to score 90% of the time.  It's no
big contribution to get the RBI for him, since he was likely going to score
anyway, and if you make an out in getting him home you have hurt the team, by
reducing the expected number of further runs that will score.

In other words, 90% of the work in getting that run for the team had already
been done by the time the RBI man came to the plate.

If you always play to get that particular runner home at any cost, you'll 
tend to never score more than one run per inning.  Translation: you'll lose
a whole lot.

(Irate aside:  last night, Jim Leyland had Jay Bell sacrifice Alex Cole to
second with nobody out in the first inning, and the Pirates already trailing
the Giants 2-0.  It may have been the single stupidest in-game managerial move
I've ever seen.)


>A groundout RBI is better than a popout or strikeout.

But a walk is better than either.


-- 
      David M. Tate      | From my dugout sleep I fell into the Game
 dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu | And I crouched in the circle while my insides froze
 Randall 'Chico' Jarrell | One out from death, one hit from dreamt-of glory
"Death of a Pinch Hitter"| I woke to 'Strike One!' and the nightmare sliders...
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: dave@silver.sni.ca (Dave Till)
Subject: Re: DAVID CONE TO BLUE JAYS
Organization: ...
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 18:55:53 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.162943.13131@cs.cornell.edu> tedward@cs.cornell.edu (Edward [Ted] Fischer) writes:
>No, White did *adequately* last year.  Even then, his OBP wasn't very
>good.  And this year?  How many bases do you have to steal to justify
>a .283 OBP in the leadoff spot?  His defense is great, but his offense
>seriously hurts the team in the leadoff spot.  Can't they hide him
>somewhere like sixth or ninth in the order?

The problem with indiscriminate lineup shuffling is that it confuses the
hitters.  Players often find it difficult to adjust to a new role.  I think,
for instance, that Olerud's hitting would suffer if he was moved to the #2 slot.

Besides, a player bumped out of a significant offensive slot (leadoff,
cleanup, etc.) becomes unhappy, which might decrease his production.
This decrease could more than offset the benefit of the lineup switch.

If I were Cito Gaston, I wouldn't tinker with the lineup unless I was *sure*
that Devon White's performance in the field or at the plate would not
get worse as a result.  Besides, it's not as if the offense was in need of
an overhaul:  the team is scoring runs.  (As of last week's McWeekly, they
were fourth in the league, behind only Detroit, Minnesota, and Oakland;
only 22 runs separate them from the league lead.)  It's the pitching that
needs improvement (since the break, their team ERA is last in the league,
and probably last on the planet :-( ).

(Digression:  Cito Gaston's lineup management theory -- decide on one, then
set it in concrete -- is the polar opposite of Jimmmmmmmmmmy Williams'
approach.  Williams used to shuffle people in and out of lineup slots depending
on hot streaks, player attitudes, the phase of the moon, what he had for
breakfast that morning...)
-- 
--Dave Till ("dave@silver.sni.ca", or try "dave@snitor.uucp"; as a last resort,
try "dwtill@watyew.waterloo.edu")  * My Canada includes the World Series. *
"Take it from me, a veteran.  The indicators of mental health in this country
are sleeping habits, hair length and beards." -- from *Whale Music*
From: jfo@afterlife.ncsc.mil (John Ormonde)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: MLB Magic Numbers for Wed, Aug 26th, 1992
Date: 26 Aug 92 22:46:45 GMT
Organization: The Great Beyond

>
>        MAGIC NUMBERS OF DIVISION LEADERS FOR WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 26, 1992
>
>Seattle Mariners	z13		        Boston Red Sox          z23

I heard that they are selling t-shirts outside of Fenway that have the
Red Sawx Magic Number as  911.  Anybody know where I can order some, I 
know a few displaced Mass. natives that would just love one :-)


-- 
John Ormonde				Internet: jfo@afterlife.ncsc.mil
GO Tribe! (Well, SOMEbody has to root for them)!
From: genetic+@pitt.edu (Dr. Dave)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Major Award Votes
Date: 3 Sep 92 18:37:54 GMT
Organization: Department of Industrial Engineering

Here's Dr. Dave's all-miserable teams for the year so far.  To be eligible, a
player must have either 250 plate appearances or 50 starts.

American League:

	C	Junior Ortiz		A whopping .558 OPS, ERA of 4.58
	1B	Pete O'Brien		.639 OPS, 268 outs in 110 games!
	2B	Steve Sax		.608 OPS, atrocious range
	3B	Scott Livingstone	Kelly Gruber a close second
	SS	Gary DiSarcina		...and it ain't even close
	LF	Greenwell/Winningham combo; Carreon is worst individual
	CF	Brian McRae, Milt Cuyler (tie)
	RF	Gary Thurman		Pasqua and Eisenreich dishonorable m.
	DH	Randy Bush

National League

	C	Scott Servais		.477 OPS; qualifies under Arnsberg rule
	1B	Andres Galarraga	clearly ready for the Big Cat box
	2B	Jose Lind		*nobody's* D makes up for a .539 OPS
	3B	Dave Hansen		Worse than Jeff King (but not Wehner)
	SS	Rafael Belliard		...again.
	LF	Luis Salazar		...by a lot over Stan Javier.
	CF	Darren Lewis		soundly trouncing Doug Dascenzo
	RF	Ruben Amaro		105 points below league OPS average

I won't even attempt to catalogue icky pitching; the BB DDD and JAck-PAC
folks are doing just fine in that regard.

I have included defensive considerations and baserunning here.

-- 
      David M. Tate      | From my dugout sleep I fell into the Game
 dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu | And I crouched in the circle while my insides froze
 Randall 'Chico' Jarrell | One out from death, one hit from dreamt-of glory
"Death of a Pinch Hitter"| I woke to 'Strike One!' and the nightmare sliders...
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: jtg@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (joel.t.glomski)
Subject: Re: Wrigley wind or not: that is the question
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 13:27:36 GMT
Keywords: Wind blowing out of Wrigley

In article <26AUG199202271491@mitme5.mit.edu> kettler@mitme5.mit.edu (KETTLER, THOMAS R.) writes:
>I have a question. Since I personally find it hard to believe that the Cubs 
>have the best staff in the NL, has anyone checked how often the wind has been 
>blowingout of Wrigley this year. I know that in Boston the weather has been 
>cooler than normal this year, and I would like to know if this is also true in 
>the Midwest. I do remember that cooler weather meant that it was less likely 
>that the wind would blow out of Wrigley, and if this is true, this could be why 
>the Cubs have a lower ERA than I would have suspected from their staff and 
>their team has hit somewhat worse than I would have believed.
>

The weather in Chicago has also been much cooler than normal
and as a result, the wind pattern has been abnormal.

On the last Cub homestand Harry remarked several times
each game that "the wind has only blown out six times
this year." He treated this as his AMAZING STATISTIC of
the year. I'm sorry that I don't have the number of times
that the wind has blown in and the number of times that
there was a crosswind, but the wind has blown in much
more than normal.


Joel
From: chuq@gallant.apple.com (Chuq Von Rospach)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: NL Schedule 1993
Date: 3 Sep 92 16:04:34 GMT
Organization: I is a writur

kettler@mitme5.mit.edu (KETTLER, THOMAS R.) writes:
>In article <Btypvy.EJt@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, rstimets@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
> (robert and writes...
>>This is awful.  How can it be that the Chicago Cubs can bully the rest of
>>the league for its own interests

Actually, it's not at all clear that the Cubs have been able to bully
anyone. All the Cubs have been able to do is get things held up in court
delays long enough that the league can't wait any longer, so they've won a
one-year delay through digging in their heels. 

At that, it's somewhat of a pyhhric victory, since it looks like the NL will
be headed towards a balanced schedule, which means that it doesn't matter in
practice anyway. The league is likely privately happy, anyway, because it'll
allow them to get the Giants home resolved before finalizing things and save
them from perhaps having to muck with it again in a year or so.

Also remember that there's a big political factor here. The lawsuit isn't so
much over re-alignment as whether Vincent has the right to order it. It's
not an anti-realignment argument as much as an attempt to limit the
Commish's powers, so the real issue isn't to be found anywhere in the court
briefs. It's a convenient excuse. It's also probably a first parry in the
upcoming fight between the Cubs and Vincent/MLB over Superstation television
rights, which is where the nuclear weapons are likely to be used.

Whenever something like this happens, it's not a good idea to look at it
outside of the context of what's going on around it. Usually a fight like
this is simply a small part of a much larger and complex battle, and
focussing just on the lawsuit ignores many of the realities. If, for
instance, Vincent were to drop his fight over restricting superstations
(something I think he's dead wrong on, and something I think the viewer
numbers don't back him up with) then the Cub's probably agree to realignment
in a nanosecond.

Realignment makes sense, but realignment's not the issue. It's just what the
lawsuit is about.

-- 
Chuq "IMHO" Von Rospach, ESD Support & Training (DAL/AUX) =+= Member, SFWA
  chuq@apple.com | GEnie: MAC.BIGOT | ALink:CHUQ =+= Editor, OtherRealms

    I believe there should be a constitutional amendment outlawing the