HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: chill@cbnews.cb.att.com (daniel.a.miller)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Eck Wins MVP in Horrible Voting
Date: 23 Nov 92 18:27:35 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T


	I am a BIG fan of the ECK, all the way back to his Cleveland Days.
The only thing I can figure, is the voters for MVP did not feel any of the 
other candidates did not have a dominating season, as the ECK did. I think
it's a shame that the award did not go to a position player, but feel that 
the ECK did in fact deserve the award. I also feel that the MVP award
should be changed to go to ONLY a position player!

- Dan
  Tribe in 94'
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: savoy@hg.uleth.ca (Jim Savoy)
Subject: Re: A TRUE RUMOR!  Sandy Alomar for Pat Borders
Reply-To: savoy@hg.uleth.ca
Organization: University of Lethbridge
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 12:08:15 GMT


> kbos@carina.unm.edu (Kurt "Some Guy" Bose) writes:

> Okay, let me get this straight.  The Carter-S.Alomar deal becomes:
> Chris James, Pat Borders, Manny Lee   for Joe Carter
> We already have Tony Fernandez for Wally Whitehurst and a PTBNL.

I don't think there was a PTBNL. I think it was TFernandez for
Whitehurst and DJ Dozier.

 _____________________________________________________________________________
     Jim Savoy          University Of Lethbridge         savoy@hg.uleth.ca

  She's in love with a boy from the rodeo -
  Who pulls the rope on the chute where they let those suckers go.
From: demers@cs.ucsd.edu (David DeMers)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Mitchell for Charlton and other trades.
Date: 21 Nov 92 04:14:10 GMT
Organization: =CSE Dept., U.C. San Diego

In article <4200358@hpcc01.corp.hp.com> boell@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Donald P Boell) writes:

>o Swift won't last as a starter because of his arm.
...
>one sometime starter, sometime closer (Swift)
...[prediction]
>o Swift becomes the closer but has continued arm problems
>o Jackson remains the most solid contributor of the three

There has been some comment that Swift will become the closer.
Has this been reported in the Bay Area or is it just fantasy?
It sure looked like Beck has proven that he can be a topnotch
short reliever, I'd expect him to keep the job fulltime.


-- 
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: tedward@cs.cornell.edu (Edward [Ted] Fischer)
Subject: Re: Tigers in 93? (Was: Re: Brewers in 93?)
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 16:47:27 GMT

In article <1992Nov15.234823.24198@netcom.com> arrow@netcom.com (Les Arrow) writes:
>>They will not "suddenly stop producing runs", but since most of their
>>regulars are over 29, they will probably decline considerably.  Especially
>>if Whitaker isn't re-signed.
>
>I don't see how you can justify that statement. They scored a lot of runs
>last year. Are you telling me that in 6 months, they suddenly are going to
>appear with canes.

Well, no.  But suppose *one* of their key players does a Jack Clark or
a Wade Boggs?  That's 10% of their offense down the drain.  The Tigers
don't have an incredible amount of depth.  They currently have eight
players who can hit (plus Cuyler and Gladden), and no real prospects
in sight.  An injury or an end-of-career slump could really hurt them.

>The fact is that with most players, declines in production are steady.

This is simply not true.  It generally takes an accelerating decline
(with blips).  And *enormous* declines are not uncommon for players
ages 32 and older.

>Rickey Henderson, in his MVP season, ate up 457 outs. Anyone who can drive
>in 120 runs and hit 40 HRs could play on my team.

There's more to baseball than driving in runs.  And what makes you
think Fielder will hit 40 HRs?  It was reasonably obvious that he
*shouldn't* hit 40 HR last year, and IMHO is now unlikely that he will
*ever* hit 40 HR in a season again.

-Valentine
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: cubsfan@camelot.bradley.edu (Michael Silverman)
Subject: 1992 Stats by FTP?
Organization: Priests of the Temples of Syrinx
Date: 20 Nov 92 22:43:49 GMT

Are the final 1992 Major League Baseball stats
avaliable by ftp anywhere?

Or, (alternatively), could someone with the 1992 final
stats e-mail them to me?

Thanks!


--
cubsfan@camelot.bradley.edu

"One likes to believe in the freedom of baseball" - Geddy Lee
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: szs@world.std.com (Stephen Z Stein)
Subject: Some thoughts on Eric Wedge
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 04:24:34 GMT

Well, I'm real sorry to see Wedge go.  I thought it was common knowledge
that promising catching prospects were *gold*.  Wedge had a real good year
at the plate both in Boston and Pawtucket, didn't impress me one way or
the other behind it.  Pena would have been a good mentor to him if Tony
didn't *hate* sharing the job.

The thing I'll miss most about Wedge was the chant.  The Sox were playing
Seattle (I think) late in the season and Eric had a couple of real clutch
hits to win a real slugfest for Boston 10-8 or something.  For his next-to-
last at-bat, the crowd was really into it and started chanting

"Wedgie, Wedgie, Wedgie"

After about ten seconds of this, at least a third of the crowd was
laughing hysterically.  A memorable moment.  (For his last at bat, most
of the crowd could keep a straight face.  Lots of giggling, though.)

Have fun, Colorado!
- Steve Stein
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: kbanaian@bernard.pitzer.claremont.edu (King Banaian)
Subject: Re: Red Sox and the draft (addendum)
Organization: Pitzer College
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 19:21:53 GMT

In article <WILLIE.92Nov18101232@amalthea.osf.org> willie@osf.org (William Williams) writes:
>
>After Reed was selected, according to WEEI this morning, the Red Sox
>added McNeely, Dopson, Scott Taylor (good Pawtucket pitching stats), 
>and Nate Minchey (minor league prospect acquired in Reardon deal).
>The Globe qualified this list with "It appears the Red Sox decided
>to protect..."  Gorman was quoted as saying the added list was con-
>fidential.
Dopson??? John Dopson???  Does he have a picture of Gorman with a goat or 
something???  Thank you for this information, but you have not made my day.  
I have absolutely no quarrel over McNeely and Minchey.  I thought Taylor 
had *not* had a good year in Pawtucket:  his K/W ratio dropped, and he got 
hit a little harder there.  (Moreover, if he was good, start his buns ahead 
of Dead-Arm Dopson.)  

>
>When asked about Wedge, Gorman said, "They've got Wedge in the Hall of
>Fame.   Why is it such a big thing?  I'd like to think we know
>players.  If Wedge ends up being an outstanding hitter, maybe that's a
>mistake.  We made our decision based on judgment and we had reasons
>for doing it.  And we stand by our decision."  Then, later, regarding
>the strategy, "Not bad at all.  We're not concerned at all."  The
>Shaughnessy article goes on to imply Gorman miscounted the number of
>catchers taken up to that point, and this figured into his thinking.
This from the man that brought us Matt Young.  Thanks a lot, Lou.  Take math 
lessons.

>And I bet the best they'll do in the free agent market is Mark
>McGuire.

Naw, this is the year we finally get Mike Flanagan.

-- Sparky
From: roper@chinet.chi.il.us (Bill Roper)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: A TRUE RUMOR!  Sandy Alomar for Pat Borders
Date: 17 Nov 92 05:03:33 GMT
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX

<1992Nov16.223816.28584@r-node.gts.org>
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX
 
 
The Jays might be interested in Baerga (even though they have Alomar)
because Baerga can also play third...
-- 
Bill Roper, roper@chinet.chi.il.us
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Commentary--Round 1, Expansion Draft
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 23:30:19 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.180451.3611@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> nlu@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu) writes:
>In <q#lqdha@lynx.unm.edu> kbos@carina.unm.edu (Kurt "Some Guy" Bose) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov17.211947.110236@zeus.calpoly.edu> jplee@zeus.calpoly.edu (Jason Lee) writes:

>>>10) Joe Girardi, C, C. Cubs               10) Bryan Harvey, RHP, California
>>A clear choice for Colorado, and I believe Nelson Lu was last spotted
>>driving off the coast above the Pacific Ocean, laughing maniacally.

>Make that "last spotted outside Gary Huckabay's apartment, carrying boxes of
>guns and ammunition out of it and loading it into the car." :-) :-( :-(

Could you drop on by Baltimore and get Billy Ripken, please, on your
way?  I mean, I thought it was wishful thinking for him to get taken,
but if they can pick Scott Aldred AND Kevin Ritz, Jerald Clark, 
Freddy Benavides, and Denis Boucher, why not Billy Ripken?

>The Angels had so little talent to protect, that it is basically inexcusable
>for them to lose three players.  Protecting DiSarcina over Harvey?  Orton I
                                                                     ^^^^^^^
>kind of understood, but I would have protected Greg Myers over him myself, and
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>they could have suffered a significant blow if they lost Don Barbara.

Could you do me the favor of explaining it, then?  I could understand
protecting DiSarcina, myself.  But someone who makes Tony Pena look like
a slugger?

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Mike Mussina 1993 AL Cy Young Winner
niepornt@phoenix.    |------------------------------------ 
   princeton.edu     | "I still believe in a place called Hope."
Clinton/Gore '92.  Don't stop thinking about tomorrow.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: ts@chainsaw.ecn.purdue.edu (Thomas Ruschak)
Subject: Re: Maduux gone, Cubs alive?
Keywords: Cubs, Maddux
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 21:39:22 GMT

In article <1992Nov22.175727.25731@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>Except that he posted that 2.18 in Wrigley.  With the Cubs' defense.  He could
>take that to the Astrodome or Dodger Stadium and have a 1.70 ERA.
>
	The Cubs are brainless, but they had a good defense last year.
Grace at 1b is very good (GG not withstanding). Sandberg is still above 
average by a bit. Sanchez/Viscaino are both at least average fielders.
Buechele, regardless of his offensive shortcomings, has always had a 
good defensive rep, and looked decent this year, and probably is at
least average, if not above. All in all, I'd call the Cub's D good.
(Anyone got some numbers?)

	2.18 in Wrigley is still impressive, of course. If the Cubs let 
Maddux (26 years old next year, no injury history, very durable, CY, etc)
go to grab someone like Cone (3 years older, hard used this year, career
ERA nowhere near Maddux's), I'll scream. Cone will want $5M. They could have
had Maddux for that this spring, but they tore up the contract. Sigh.

Tom
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: tedward@cs.cornell.edu (Edward [Ted] Fischer)
Subject: Re: Brewers in 93?
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 16:13:00 GMT

In article <1992Nov15.030429.7588@netcom.com> arrow@netcom.com (Les Arrow) writes:
>
>--> The difference between the Brewers and the Tigers is the Brewers aren't
>    expected to do anything to improve their team this offseason. Meanwhile
>    the Tigers with new money will almost certainly be looking for free agent
>    pitchers.

But the Brewers did rather a lot better last year.  Greg Maddux won't
make *that* much of a difference.

>>And their offense, while strong, is, IMHO, going to deteriorate rapidly.
>
>--> Why? I don't see any reason while they should suddenly stop producing 
>    runs.

Age.  Easy to ignore as long as a player is producing, but when a
player goes over the edge in his career, the drop can be devastating.
See Jack Clark.  He was reasonably productive in 1991, then *died* in
1992.  Deer and Tettleton are 32 next season.  Phillips is 34.
Whitaker and Trammell will be 35 and 36.  Fielder is on the wrong side
of 27.  Only Fryman is young enough to expect improvement...  And
sooner or later the rest of the offense will collapse.  They need some
kids (and Brogna doesn't qualify, unless he learns how to hit).

>>Cecil Fielder?  Can he decline *again*?  He's not much above average at
>>this point.  And their outfield isn't anything special.
>
>--> Yeah. Maybe he'll only get 120 RBIs next year.

If RBIs were worth counting, you might have a point.  They aren't.
They are only one way to contribute to an offense (and not the most
important way either), and Fielder simply doesn't contribute at *all*
except for those RBIs.  First base is an offensive position, and while
Fielder was still an above-average offensive player last year, he is
no longer an above-average offensive 1B man.  His tremendous success
in 1990 was a fluke, and his high RBI totals since then are primarily
the work of Phillips and Whitaker.  Trammell didn't run a bad OBP
either.  As the OBP in front of Fielder goes, so will his RBIs.

-Valentine
From: srobson@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Seth I Robson)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Steve Reed -- Once a Giant, Now a Rocky -- WHY?
Date: 20 Nov 92 08:33:32 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucscb.ucsc.edu


jplee@zeus.calpoly.edu (Jason Lee) writes:
> Giants fans out there, let me ask you something -- Why on earth did Rosen &
> gang leave this kid unprotected?  He only set the all time National
> Association record for saves this year.  He is, no, was one of the best
> prospects the Giants had, and now we have nothing.

His 40+ saves last year (right?) set a single-season record for all
minor league baseball.  He split a roughly equal amount of time between
Shreveport and Phoenix.

Most people seem to be of the opinion that he's not really that great a 
prospect; and that his sidearm delivery--while a novelty of great distraction
to minor league hitters--would be easily solved by big-leaguers (especially
left-handed hitters, I presume).

> I can only get a little relief from this.  We didn't lose Salomon Torres,
> Rick Huisman, or Kevin (?) McGehee.  Thank goodness for that......

If you asked me, I would say I was more upset at losing Pat Rapp.  The fact
that the Marlins used their fifth overall pick to snatch him must give some
indication as to their hopes for him.  He could be a pretty respectable
major league pitcher, but I feel better about Torres, Huisman, Kevin
Rogers, McGehee, and Steve Whitaker, among others in the Giants' farm
system.  All in all, I'd say the Giants came out of the expansion draft
relatively unscathed: Steve Decker obviously wasn't in anyone's long-term
plans, they held on to their more promising starting pitching prospects, and
Rod Beck will be the closer for a while...

--
Seth I. Robson: srobson@ucscb.ucsc.edu  "The only alternative to the Spectacle
                 srobson@cats.ucsc.edu   becomes the Spectacle of the
  University of California, Santa Cruz   alternative."
From: terence@deakin.oz.au
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: 'A League of Their Own"
Date: 17 Nov 1992 04:41:52 GMT
Organization: Deakin University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: glg-edn-mac-78.edn.deakin.oz.au

This is my first post, so I hope I don't make a fool of myself!
But
Did anyone notice in "A League of Their Own" towards the end of the film, where
the player took a foul fly and fell in the dugout?

The player on first should have been moved to second, because the rule states
that if a player falls into the dugout after taking a fly, then all baserunners
advance one base.

I hope this has not already been covered in this newsgroup.

PS: I am a baseball umpire here in Australia, and have just been added to the
Australian Baseball League panel. (Still awaiting my first appointment!)
From: spira@panix.com (Greg "Sarcasm Is A Way Of Life" Spira)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Reaction to Rockies Draft
Date: 18 Nov 92 03:46:37 GMT
Organization: Boo!


 

Reaction;  BWAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Projected Lineup OBPs from STATS - 

E. Young - .313
Galarraga - .291
J. Clark - .278
Bichette - .276
C. Hayes - .286
Girardi - .302
Cole - .340 

Don't remember who their projected shortstop is, but this is pathetic.

The Marlins did a much better job.

Greg
From: srobson@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Seth I Robson)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Mitchell for Charlton and other trades.
Date: 18 Nov 92 09:18:36 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucscb.ucsc.edu


Well, the Seattle Mariners and Cinninnati Reds have gotten together on a
rather intriguing swap: Kevin Mitchell comes back to the NL West in
exchange for Norm Charlton.  It looks like Cincinnati is not only willing
to wager that Dibble's 1992 troubles are past him, but also that Mitchell's
1991-2 troubles are past _him_.  At the very least, that leaves Reggie 
Sanders and Roberto Kelly to squabble over who plays right field... :-)
Did the Reds send anybody else to Seattle with Charlton?

I wouldn't call a clear winner in this trade--yet.  The Mariners got a
solid relief pitcher, and the Reds got a big wild card.  Time is almost
out for Kevin Mitchell, but I wouldn't 100% count him out from having a 1990-
like season again sometime, assuming he stays somewhat healthy and out of
any off-field shenanigans.

--
Seth I. Robson; srobson@ucscb.ucsc.edu  [ humm-baby! ]
University of California, Santa Cruz
"There's something kind of EUUUUUUUGH about a kid that doesn't like
 to play baseball..."  -- Foghorn Leghorn.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: C Robert Claydon <cclaydon@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Subject: stats request
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 00:09:30 GMT
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]

Hi,

If anyone has some stats on-line for the NL and AL for the 1992 season they 
could email me (I know sometimes they are posted here), I would appreciate it 
very much.

Thanks in advance,
Rob
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: spira@panix.com (Greg "Sarcasm Is A Way Of Life" Spira)
Subject: Re: the anti-hit is gone
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 18:21:32 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <1992Nov20.132250.27024@cbnews.cb.att.com> dae@cbnews.cb.att.com (david.a.elliott) writes:

>Now for the big question, just WHAT are the Royals doing?  They already have
>a fine second baseman (Miller).  Lind hasn't played SS since A ball, and
>Miller hasn't played much SS at all in his career.  If they are planning on
>moving Miller to SS and playing Lind at 2B, they WHY did they protect Howard
>in the draft???

>This trade makes no sense at all to me.  They didn't give up a lot, but it
>doesn't make sense to give up anything for a player you don't need.

>If they are planning on moving Miller back to the OF and playing Lind and
>Howard in the infield, I quit.  I hear the Indians are looking for new
>fans....

ESPN reported that yes, they plan to move Miller back to the outfield.

Quiz: What does a team with two of the 5 worst offensive regulars in the
AL do?

Answer: Pick up the worst offensive player in the NL, of course.  Isn't this 
solution obvious to everyone?


The only explanation I can think of is that there is a secret race between
the Royals and the Angels to see who can put the worse offense on the field
next year.  With this masterful stroke, it appears that the Royals have taken
an early lead, but I'm sure the competition will continue to be fierce.

Greg 

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: jmk.admin@mhs.unc.edu (Jim Kirkman)
Subject: Re: Keith Mitchell/Olsen ???
Organization: UNC Office of Information Technology
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 13:56:26 GMT

In article <jhopkins.178.722123460@cbacc.cba.uga.edu> jhopkins@cbacc.cba.uga.edu (John Hopkins) writes:
>In article <1992Nov18.213318.6239@cs.tulane.edu> eebonar@sn01.sncc.lsu.edu (Dave Bonar) writes:
>
>>I figure that the Brave's three protect
>>players (after the loss of Neid) were Pete Smith, Merker and Mitchell.  
>
>I figure Smith, Mercker, and Lemke.

Anybody know what the deal on Greg Olsen is/was. He was not on the 
protected list (that I know of) and obviously not taken in the 
draft. I would assume his injury made him either a: too suspect
to be drafted (one rumor wonders if he'll be able to make it 
back at all) or b: being on the injured reserve he wasn't eligible
to be drafted. What's the scoop? BTW the Harvey for Justice trade
sounds intriguing, any comments, would the Braves get equal worth?



-







Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: creative managing
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 14:10:01 GMT

In article <92319.160924RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu> <RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu> writes:
>the problem here is that a relief pitcher must pitch for at least one
>plate appearance, or until the inning is over (e.g. two outs, reliever
>comes in, picks a guy off first.  he hasn't pitched a plate appearance,
>but you can still take him out).
>
>as for the idea still being useful when you're just going to intentionally
>walk the next batter, sorry, but no.  you're wasting a player on your
>roster.  you might as well have the starter stay in and give the
>intentional walk.  unless the starter absolutely cannot, because he's
>injured, but in that case, the reliever gets as much warmup time as
>he needs, anyway.
>
>bob vesterman.
>

i will grant that the manager must waste a player to do what i am 
suggesting - that is inherent in the tactic. the point is to use
someone who is never going to be used in the game anyway - 99% of games
have many players who are not used. what i had in mind anyway is another
starter - much as they are sometimes used as pinchrunners. i don't think
putting them in to throw a few pitches would hurt their arms either -
it could even be used as part of the "between starts" practice that some
pitchers get.

i would think that the time it takes for the intermediate guy to walk in
from the bullpen, adjust the mound, take his warm-up tosses, etc. would
take at least 5 minutes, which could be a real advantage to a short
reliever who might need 10 but have had only 5 up to that point. and by
using someone from the roster who is not likely to be used anyway,
it costs relatively little.

--
charles
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball