HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: spira@panix.com (Greg "Sarcasm Is A Way Of Life" Spira)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Gold Gloves Announced
Date: 6 Nov 92 17:13:57 GMT
Organization: ?

In <steph.721034424@pegasus.cs.uiuc.edu> steph@pegasus.cs.uiuc.edu (Dale Stephenson) writes:

>In <1992Nov5.222415.5191@panix.com> spira@panix.com (Greg "Sarcasm Is A Way Of Life" Spira) writes:

(First: When I listed the gold gloves, I forgot the pitchers: Maddux and
Langston) 

>The range factors really didn't correlate well in the AL at all.  Only Robin
>Ventura was at the top, or even near it.  At least most of the NL are second.
>I thought it was interesting the NL had a LF, CF, and RF for gold gloves -- 
>when was the last time that happened?

Don't know, but it is rare.  I sort of understand why they don't have one
award for each outfield position, but I still think it is ridiculous.  The
3 best outfielders are going to be centerfielders about 80% of the time. 

>I can think of all sorts of things that can go wrong with range factor, but
>is it a better indicator than Gold Glove voting?

Probably, though I certainly wouldn't want to rely on one year's worth of
range factors to judge defense.  The worst range factors are probably the
ones for second basemen and shortstops because putouts are dependent on other
members of the infield.

What I want to know is - who in their right mind thinks that Kirby Puckett
is a better defensive centerfielder than people like Lofton and Lance
Johnson?

  When and where will Defensive
>Average numbers be available?

Presumably when Sherri gets the season's data from Project Scoresheet ..oops,
that's Sportsource... oops, that's now The Baseball Workshop ... and has time
to calculate them. (By the way, for anyone interested, Gary Gillete is
managing to get out another Great American Baseball Stat Book in the spring)
Zone Ratings - basically an inferior version of DA, but still probably better
than range factors, is available now in STATS' Player Profiles book.

Greg 
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: tedward@cs.cornell.edu (Edward [Ted] Fischer)
Subject: Re: Still more on Don Mattingly
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 18:12:50 GMT

In article <9168@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> genetic+@pitt.edu (Dr. Dave) writes:
>
>I can make a _prima_facie_ case that this can't be the explanation:  Wade
>Boggs.  Boggs has the highest contact rate in the majors.  Every year (except
>1992 :-( ) you hear about how Wade Boggs has only swung and missed 9 times all
>year, or some such.  And yet he walks 100 times a year, regular as clockwork.

Boggs, like Nolan Ryan, is a poor example to use.  With fewer than two
strikes, he will only swing at total meatballs.  With two strikes, he
will swing at most close pitches, but is only attempting to foul them
off.  He will often take 2-3 defensive swings before either walking,
seeing one he wants to put in play, or striking out on a called third
strike.

Mattingly, Puckett, Greenwell, Gwynn.  All are good contact hitters
*without* the plate discipline of Boggs.  They could walk more if they
swung less often, but it is also true that their ability to make
contact on marginal pitches prevents them from walking as much as they
otherwise might.  (Their batting eyes aren't as bad as their BB totals
might indicate.)

-Valentine
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: carl@warper.jhuapl.edu (Carl Lamy)
Subject: Re: MLB vs Japan All-Stars
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
Distribution: na
Date:  6 Nov 92 22:10:11 GMT

I saw a bit nf the last game on the television and was surprised to see that
Osaka stadium sports a dirt infield. Do all the Japanese stadia have dirt
infields, and if they do, are there any other differences between Japanese
and US parks?

		See you later, Carl

INET: carl@warper.jhuapl.edu
UUCP: {backbone!}mimsy!aplcomm!warper!carl

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: kbos@carina.unm.edu (Kurt "Some Guy" Bose)
Subject: Re: HR's in Denver
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 01:00:00 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <1drmcjINNk87@master.cs.rose-hulman.edu> rickert@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (John H. Rickert) writes:
>In article <1992Nov9.235637.1109@cs.uwp.edu> krueger@cs.uwp.edu (Gerald  
>Krueger) writes:
>> Maybe I missed the discussion on this, but what are the dimensions
>> of the park for the Rockies?  And how good an idea does MLB have
>> about the conditions in Denver; Is the above common knowledge or
>> are there other views? If a 400 foot HR is gonna go 440, what 
>> happens when someone really gets a hold of one?
>
>I forget the dimensions (they're long).
>Joey Meyer hit a 502 ft. homerun a few years ago.
>
Well, since I happen to have the Coors Field dimensions handy, here they are:

LFL: 347
LCF: 390
DCF: 415
RCF: 375
RFL: 350

It will be one of the larger parks in the majors, comfortably, but will 
probably play slightly better for the batter, home-run wise.  Kinda like
Busch Stadium with the power potential of old Memorial Stadium in Balmer.

I think that the number of doubles and (because of the promise to make the
stadium "quirky") triples will be higher than average, possibly more out of
whack than the HRs.  Just a question: anybody have numbers of doubles home and
away for Cleveland Stadium in 1991?  Big outfield, grass...the same attributes
as Coors.  I'd guess that Coors would play the same, without the low number of
home runs.  The lower air density might affect the OFs of opposing teams, as
well...assuming that the home team's OF can adjust.  If I get the time, I'll
call the Dukes office in the morning and see if I can get any answers...

Oh, and as far as HR length goes...the line is that balls go nine percent
farther in Denver, and the fences are four percent deeper.  I figure most 
warning track shots will be out in Denver.  As for _really_ long shots, in
1991, there were 45 HRs of 440 feet or more.  I'd guess that you'll see a couple
475 foot shots per year, and as many as a dozen taters of more than 450 feet.

Any questions???  :)

-- 
Kurt Bose (as in Daisy, not Rose) * kbos@carina.unm.edu * Make outs, not walks!
TONIGHT-In "Ryecatcher", Holden Caulfield foils a plot to turn his old prep
school into a right-wing military acadamy run by Neo-Nazis. 8PM(7PM C/M) Ch. 7
                                                        -The Book of Sequels...
From: jhg8680@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Jon  Hamkins)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Mattingly, what a fine fielder (was: Hardly not etc.)
Date: 6 Nov 92 21:39:29 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.BxBDHw.6G1
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

maynard@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Roger Maynard) writes:
>snichols@adobe.com (Sherri Nichols) writes:
>>jplee@zeus.calpoly.edu (Jason Lee) writes:

>>You don't have to see any games to be "qualified" to discuss baseball.  

>This is just about the most rediculous statement I have ever seen any member
>of the FofDT Society post.  You seem to be suggesting that one could be
>"qualified" to discuss baseball if one had never seen even one game.

Roger, one doesn't have to meet some standard before being qualified to
discuss baseball.  If a friend of mine is explaining the game to a
foreigner who has just arrived in the country (and has never seen a
game), I would say that the foreigner is discussing baseball with my
friend.  That doesn't mean this guy knows a lot about it.

>Leaving aside the obvious question of why one would wish to discuss 
>something one had no first hand familiarity with,

This is absurd.  How the heck do you learn about *anything* you are
unfamiliar with if you don't discuss it?  The look/do imitation method
would be a lot slower than discussing how something is done, or what
the best strategy is.  

Indeed, if I already know all about something, the discussion would be
boring.  I'm interesting in discussing new things.

>>>see one game, that certainly qualifies you to discuss is.  Mr. Loparco
>>>has the right idea here.  He says the only real way to judge a player is
>>>by watching him.

>>I disagree.  I think in many ways, that's the worst way to judge a player.

>I stand corrected.  You just outdid yourself.  I guess when you want to
>know what the weather is like outside you just flick the remote to the 
>weather channel right?

Nice rhetoric, but it doesn't dispute the point.  By watching a player
some of the time, you miss all the information that is available from
those times that you weren't watching him.  That's what statistics are
for-- to systematically record what happens.  Furthermore, the
statistics filter out out some of the biases that observers are subject
to by recording specific objective events.

But to argue your rhetoric, why don't we use your analogy.  Suppose we
want to know how cold (good) the weather (player) is.  I can step
outside and say, "Yeah, today's weather (so-n-so player) is damn cold
(good)."  But I couldn't say exactly what the set of days are that are
colder than today's (I can feel differences of, oh, 5 degrees) until I
flipped on the weather channel to see what the specific temperature is.

     ----Jon Hamkins  (hamkins@uiuc.edu)
         University of Illinios
         Urbana, IL
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: krueger@cs.uwp.edu (Gerald Krueger)
Subject: HR's in Denver
Summary: 40 Feet! 
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Parkside
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 23:56:37 GMT

Last week someone suggested reading "The Physics of Baseball"
by Robert Adair, Sterling Professor of Physics at Yale.  On
reading the book I found this to be quite interesting:

	"Since the retarding force on the ball depends on
	the density of the air, the ball will travel farther
	in ball parks at higher altitudes.  A 400-foot home
	run at Yankee Stadium, near sea level, would translate
	to a 408-foot drive in Atlanta. . .  These differences
	are not so great as to modify the game, but if a major
	league franchise is someday granted to Denver
	consideration should be given to requiring a larger 
	park or using a less lively ball.  A 400-foot drive by
	Dave Winfield in New York would go as much as 40 feet
	farther through the thinner air in Denver!  Further-
	more, pitchers would find that their fast balls were 
	half a foot quicker in Denver though their curves 
	would not bite quite so well. (pg 18,19)"

Maybe I missed the discussion on this, but what are the dimensions
of the park for the Rockies?  And how good an idea does MLB have
about the conditions in Denver; Is the above common knowledge or
are there other views? If a 400 foot HR is gonna go 440, what 
happens when someone really gets a hold of one?
						Jerry
From: zippy@calvin.seattleu.edu (David Dennis)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Greatest moments in baseball history
Date: 11 Nov 92 22:07:32 GMT
Article-I.D.: sumax.5717
Organization: Seattle University

Greatest moments in baseball history:

The 'intentional strikeout' that the A's used on Johnny Bench in '72.
I thought the pitcher was Vida Blue, but that might not be right.
Count of 2 balls, 2 strikes.  Billy visits the mound.  Bench waits.
Conference over, Tenace returns to the plate and stands up for an intentional
walk.  Ball three is lobbed.  Bench waits with the bat on his shoulder.
A's pitcher winds up, Tenace dives down into a crouch, and Bench watches
frozen looking at called strike three.  Inning over.

Ozzie Smith's playoff winning homer off of Tom Niedenfeuer in '85.
"Goodnight everybody!!"

Whitey Herzog managing a bullpen, practically any game that mattered.
He'd bring in Worrell, get a righty out, put Worrell in RF, bring in
Daley to pitch to a left-hander, Daley would keep the ball away,
the out would be to LF, Worrell would come back in to K the last batter.
Then the next inning it would work out completely and Quirk or Oquendo
(the year he hit .298 after being a career .200 hitter) would lead off.
Just the best manager I've seen.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Favorite players from youth:

Steve Carlton.  what a scary opponent.  Utterly dominating, and mean too.

Lou Brock.  Look up his world series batting average, it's over .400.

Billy Williams.  Sweet-swinging Billy.  Almost won a triple crown:
Bench beat him at homers (45-42) and Torre at average (.361-.343) approx.

Bruce Sutter.  From '76-'78 he was utterly unhittable.  Then the Cardinals
got him and he still was pretty awesome, with that defense behind him.

The Jerrys: White, Martin, Morales, Mumphrey.  Mumphrey was the only really
good player but you could have a funny stratomatic outfield with them.

Rick 'The Whale' Reuschell.  20-10 for the 81-81 Cubs in '78.

The South Side Hit Men of '77.  The lineup was full of one-year
rentaplayers, none of whom could field, but they tore the cover off the
ball, even in Old Comiskey.  'Pitch at risk to Richie Zisk,' 'Hey Spence,
over the fence,' read two of the bedsheet banners that were always out. 
It was a carnival hosted by Bill Veeck and Harry Caray.  The pitching
staff had nobody starting with an ERA under 4.00, (Steve Stone, Ken
Kravec, Chris Knapp, Francisco Barrios), and the relief ace was Lerrin
LaGrow (3.47 ERA) .  There was an outfielder starting at short (Alan
Bannister; he hit about .300). The definitive game might have been in
early June, when they spotted the Twins an 8-0 lead, then came back to win
12-10 in nine innings. They challenged the A's and Royals before finishing
3rd at 90-72, 6 1/2 out. 

-Zippy

P.S. If anybody can show the Puget Sound what baseball is really about,
it's Pinella. 
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: maynard@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Roger Maynard)
Subject: Re: Mattingly, what a fine fielder (was: Hardly not etc.)
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Laurentian University, Sudbury, ON
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 23:57:21 GMT

In <1992Nov06.223650.37426@watson.ibm.com> mjones@fenway.aix.kingston.ibm.com (Mike "Becoming my favourite Poster!" Jones) writes:

>I presume, then, that we will never see a posting from you discussing Babe
>Ruth, Honus Wagner, Ted Williams, Willie Mays, etc., etc., since you didn't
>see them play? You're foaming at the mouth again, Roger, and as usual you

Well I certainly am not about to go around claiming that "in my opinion" 
Mays was a better fielder than Ruth.  Most of us would accept it though
without having to refer to any statistics.
 
>can't make a local call to a clue. There are people all over the place
>interested in baseball, and some fraction of them have never seen the game.

And some of them, like you yourself, insist on submitting their worthless
opinions to the net...

>Occasionally they post here for information. There's more to baseball than

Posting for information is hardly what I would call "discussing" mattingly's
ability or lack of.

>showing up, downing a few beers, and presuming that since you actually had
>your butt in the seat when something happened that you're qualified to judge
>it.

And some are content to open the morning newspaper, soak up the boxscores 
and presume that because you remember a few numbers you are qualified to 
judge...Hell, I'll take the "butt in the seat" everytime.

>Perhaps a science course or two at your fine university could clear up your
>confusion. You know, even if you *did* get enough observations to be useful

Yeah I guess if baseball was a science it might help...but despite the
herculean efforts of philistines like yourself it remains a game played by
people and for people.  Maybe if I take a science course or two you might
agree to plant your "butt in the seat" once or twice?  As long as you don't
get bored...

>and weren't biased because of a player's team, position, etc., I still don't
>think I'd believe that you are as qualified to make player judgements as a
>scout.

You are exactly right on this point and that is why, unlike yourself, you
aren't likely to see me second-guess real scouts or managers.

>Once again, we're back to the basic fallacy. Just because a guy looks
>graceful or athletic doesn't mean he's a good player. Boy, you must think
>that John Kruk really sucks in the field. He doesn't look athletic and his
>fundamentals can't compare to Mattingly or McGwire. But what does this tell
>you about how well he fields? The minor leagues are full of guys whose
>fundamentals looked good enough for a scout to sign them, but a lot of them
>just can't play the game.

Well when I look at a player to see how good he is I am not looking at his
waist line.  And of course the minor leagues are full of players that scouts
signed.  They were beaten out by other guys the scouts signed.

rm

-- 
roger maynard
maynard@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca
Xref: sparky rec.sport.baseball:32311 tor.general:1496
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball,tor.general
From: migod@turing.toronto.edu (Mike Godfrey)
Subject: Re: Toronto Fans
Organization: CSRI, University of Toronto
Date: 5 Nov 92 13:31:57 GMT

In article <2AF81B36.8E6@telly.on.ca> evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) writes:
>
>It's true that the best proof to my theories about the Jays drawing in
>bad times will have to be seen as time passes. 

Bite your tongue, Evan!

-- 
Mike Godfrey                                "I came so far for beauty,
Dept of Comp Sci, UofT                       I left so much behind."
migod@turing.toronto.edu                                -- Leonard Cohen
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: s_bean@oz.plymouth.edu (Shaun P. Bean)
Subject: Re: Unofficial Protected Lists from San Jose Mercury
Reply-To: s_bean@oz.plymouth.edu (Shaun P. Bean)
Organization: Plymouth State College - Plymouth, N.H.
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 20:40:53 GMT

Would someone Email me this if you have it.  I missed it and would
really like to see it.

shaun


Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: maynard@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Roger Maynard)
Subject: Re: Mattingly, what a fine fielder (was: Hardly not etc.)
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Laurentian University, Sudbury, ON
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 08:23:56 GMT

In <1992Nov10.024004.4391@news2.cis.umn.edu> lsmith@femto.cs.umn.edu (Lance "Almost as funny as Jones" Smith) writes:

>I think we just entered the Maynard Zone.

>OK, how do those people, who gave the testimonials, know Babe was a good
>hitter? Certainly not just by watching his swing. Certainly not just by
>seeing him hit a home run now and again. (heck, last year I saw Randy Bush 
>hit three home runs and he was just a pinch hitter!)

People who saw Ruth saw someone who hit home runs much more than "now and
again".  And understanding what you are seeing goes far beyond simply watching
his swing.   

>Could it be that they sat down at the end of the year and saw that he 
>had hit a lot of home runs? Could it be that he held the record for most 

So you would have had to wait to the end of the year to see that Ruth
could hit?  Nah, you could have checked out the stats everyday in the
paper couldn't you?  That way you wouldn't have had to even bother going
to the game...

>home runs hit in a year and a career? But wait! Those are stats! They
>are evil!

Are stats evil?  Why do you think that?  I myself would suggest that
for some of us stats just don't tell us enough about a sport that we
love.

>To truly understand how really, really amazing Babe Ruth was (and Bob
>Uecker wasn't) sit down and go over his career numbers. Compare those
>to the averages of his time. Compare those to the averages of today. 
>Babe Ruth's numbers are impressive and they help us who couldn't see him
>play understand what a special hitter he was.

Well at this point we don't have much choice do we?  I feel that my
appreciation of Ruth would have been heightened if I had seen him play.
Apparently it wouldn't matter to you...
 
rm

-- 
roger maynard
maynard@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca
Xref: sparky rec.sport.baseball:32382 tor.general:1502
From: perry@isgtec.com (Perry Lee)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball,tor.general
Subject: Re: Toronto Fans
Date: 5 Nov 92 22:35:06 GMT
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Anand Sinha (sinhaa@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca) wrote:
: In article <1992Nov4.002336.462@adobe.com> snichols@adobe.com (Sherri Nichols) writes:
: >If you're going to use the 4 million+ attendance numbers since Skydome as
: >evidence, you should put them in context.  My 1990 Almanac lists Toronto as
: >having a population of over 3.4 million, based on 1986 census numbers.
: >It's not clear from my source whether this refers to just the city alone,
: >or whether it refers to the metropolitan area.  If it's just the city
: >alone, and we compare comparable numbers for the city alone for the US
: >cities, Toronto would be the largest city with only one team.
: >
: >Does anyone have numbers for the metropolitan area of Toronto?
: 
: The population of 3.4mil for the Metro Toronto Area.  The city of Toronto is
: not very large in population itself, probably less than 1mil.
: 
: There are approximately 6mil within a 1-1.5 hour drive of Toronto.
: 
: Hey, we could go for another baseball team in Toronto...yeah...an NL team,
: so we can get an all-Toronto WS. :-)

In 1991, there was a perfect opportunity for this to happen on an interim
basis during September.  After the fiasco with the Big O in Montreal,
the Expos were forced to spend the last part of the season on the road.
I'm sure that a lot of Torontonians would have welcomed the Expos with open
arms.  Heck, Exhibition Stadium could have been made ready in an instant!

: 
: Anand Sinha
: TORONTO BLUE JAYS --> WORLD CHAMPIONS 1992!!!!

--
Perry Lee                                  Phone: (416) 672-2100
ISG Technologies                           Fax:   (416) 672-2307
3030 Orlando Drive                         UUCP:      perry@isgtec.uucp
Mississauga, Ontario, Canada, L4V 1S8      Internet:  perry@isgtec.com
From: libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: 5 truly unbreakable records.
Date: 14 Nov 92 00:23:14 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

cs127050@cs.brown.edu (Michael Kalman) writes:
: 
:         Just to pick up the fewest-pitches-in-an-inning thread, 
: I think that (theoretically) a pitcher can retire the side on 
: zero pitches:
: 
:    for out= 1 to 3
:      {
:       for ball= 1 to 4
:          {
:           pitcher goes to his mouth w/ his hand on a warm day;
:           umpire calls a ball;
:           }
: 
:        batter reaches first base on walk;
:        (batter picked off) or (batter caught stealing);
:      }
:    END OF INNING!
: 
: 
: (This is the tragic result of a student who has done nothing
: but programming for the last few days :-)
: 
: Michael Kalman      

Theoretically, this may be possible; but I suspect that the pitcher
in question would be in the clubhouse long before his 12th
attempted spitter.
Bill Anderson  
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: C Robert Claydon <cclaydon@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Subject: Rockies First Player!!!
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 05:51:32 GMT
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]

The Colorado Rockies Tuesday acquired pitcher Travis Buckley from the Montreal 
Expos; the trade made Buckley officially the first player on the 40-player 
roster of Colorado!!!

Wow, so I guess he gets the honors of first Rocky, eh?  (Or does one actually 
have to end up on the final opening day roster?)

Rob
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball