HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jwood@advtech.uswest.com (Jim Wood)
Subject: Re: Mitchell for Charlton and other trades.
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 16:53:15 GMT


In <1992Nov19.104541.10005@netcom.com> arrow@netcom.com (Les Arrow) writes:

>I really like this trade for both sides. Seattle, finally has a player
>to stabilize their bullpen. If Schooler can come back, he can still be a decent
>setup man, IMHO. Seattle, if they can now find a leadoff man should be
>a reasonable contender. Maybe Greg Briley finally?

In <1992Nov19.162422.12522@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David 
Marc Nieporent) writes:

>>Wait, I just re-read what you were saying.  And I'm not clear on exactly
>>what it meant.  Are you claiming they should make Greg Briley their
>>leadoff man?  Greg Briley, of the career .320 OBP?  Greg Briley, who put
>>up a .290 OBP last year?  Greg Briley?

Les responds:

>Sure. Briley really hasn't been given a chance to play so I think it is
>unfair to use his .320 career OBP against him yet. Besides, their other
>choices are to go with wasting Edgar Martinez in the #1 spot or resigning 
>Harold Reynolds who doesn't have a much better career OBP and would stifle
>the play of Bret Boone. Of course, they could always go out and get someone,
>but I doubt that will happen.

Have either of you considered the fact the M's might have already decided
to give Henry Cotto a full-time shot at left field and the leadoff position?
Henry has always been a low-key role player, one who never openly griped about
lack of playing time (which we all know he desired more of), and has produced
when given an opportunity.

Cotto, if memory serves me, holds the record for successful steal percentage
for players with 100 attempts.  He has good speed, is an intelligent base
runner, has a good glove and range in the outfield, and may really shine given
a shot at the every-day job. 

I agree that the M's won't go out and get a leadoff man - simply because I
think they have a good one in Cotto and the M's pitching and catching needs
are greater!

Jim
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: nlu@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu)
Subject: Re: Comments on Round 1 of the Expansion Draft
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 23:16:16 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.220415.128883@zeus.calpoly.edu> jplee@zeus.calpoly.edu (Jason Lee) writes:
>I was wondering......
>
>Why on earth didn't the Angels protect Bryan Harvey?  Maybe Mr. Lu will have
>a comment on this.

Good question.  I think that it's because the Autrys are cheap. :-(

Losing Harvey is a big blow.  Harvey may not return to his former
dominating self, but he being set up by Joe Grahe would be very good.
Now, the somewhat questionable Grahe will have to do it by himself,
probably set up by Mike Butcher and Steve Frey.  Not a sight that I
savor, really...
>
>I think the pick of Alex Cole looks good for the Rockies.  Speed in center
>field is important, given that Mile High Stadium and Coors Field are large,
>and that the ball carries well in Denver's altitude.  I hope that Cole can
>develop into the outstanding leadoff hitter that he has the potential to
>become.

He already is an excellent leadoff hitter.  Just don't let him steal.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Alright, I don't understand.
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 02:14:11 GMT

I thought the protected lists published by the Tribune, et al were
supposed to be accurate.

So why is Toronto protecting Carlos Delgado?  

Are they dumb?  Do they know they don't have to?  Or was that just a
rumor someone posted, which my warped brain twisted into the truth?

-- 
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.
Date: Tuesday, 17 Nov 1992 23:35:51 EST
From: <RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Earl Weaver V. 2
Distribution: na

in my opinion, weaver ii is simply worse than the original.

first, it's ridiculuosly slow, because of the super-duper graphics.
but who cares all that much about the graphics anyway? it's not an
arcade game.  it used to take about 10 minutes or so to play a game.
now it takes a half hour, at the bare minimum.

second, it is horribly bug-laden.  for example, if the pitcher on
the winning team who pitched the final out is not the winning pitcher,
he gets a save.

third, it is much more difficult to trade players from team to team,
especially if you don't actually want to switch the teams of two
players, but just want to send a guy to another team.  it's not
impossible; it's not even very tough once you get used to it, but
compared to the simple way of doing it in version one, it sucks.

it does, however, have some bright spots which are improvements over
the original.  some examples:

      it records caught stealings and stolen bases now, instead
      of just the latter.


      the chance of a runner successfully stealing a base now
      depends on the pitcher, as well as the catcher and runner.

      being able to have more than 25 players on the team is
      nice (though you can still only use 25 of them in a game;
      you can't switch to 40 man rosters, which is dumb).

      it seems to be a bit more realistic, in that 1989's
      kevin mitchell would not hit 108 dingers over the course
      of a season in this version (no kidding, he did in a
      league i ran for the first weaver).

there are other nice things, and other bad things.  if you do
get this game, make sure you've got a fast computer.

oh - the worst part - i got the game with the 1990 stats.  i kept
watching in computer stores for the 1991 stats to come out.  finally
i got sick of it (the 1992 season was already underway), and i called
electronic arts, asking when the 1991 stats were going to come out.
the operator said, "oh, we're not making stat disks anymore."

i would suggest buying pursue the pennant.  unless you're the type
who wants graphics, since there are none in ptp.  personally, i think
graphics are nice, but not in the least necessary, and when they're
done to the extent that they are in weaver ii, they just get in the
way of the game.  but maybe if i had a faster computer, i'd think
differently.

bob vesterman.

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: nlu@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu)
Subject: Re: Commentary--Round 1, Expansion Draft
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 18:04:51 GMT

In article <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." :-) :-( :-(

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.

===============================================================================
GO CALIFORNIA ANGELS!
===============================================================================
Nelson Lu (claudius@leland.stanford.edu)
From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Marlins fans are merely jealous...
Date: 19 Nov 92 18:11:22 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Nov19.181122.19652
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <wilbanks.722137910@spot.Colorado.EDU> wilbanks@spot.Colorado.EDU (Wendell Gee) writes:
(some stuff deleted)
>
>September 2000:
>LOS ANGELES (AP) - The Colorado Rockies locked up a wild-card berth in the
>National League playoffs today, beating the Dodgers 4-2. David Nied got 
>his 45th save of the year.

Isn't it a violation of usenet rules (not to mention
common decency) to woof for a team that doesn't
even exist yet?  :)

>ROCKIES ROCKIES ROCKIES!!! Just win! Please? at least 63 times?

What?  NO WAY!  This would put an expansion team at the same
level as established teams like the Dodgers and Mariners.
Although, now that I think about it some more ...



-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: wayman@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Jeffrey Wayman)
Subject: Re: creative managing
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 20:08:22 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523

In article <17NOV199213182146@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov> cazuzek@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (Zuzek, John E.) writes:
>In article <BxtI46.9u5@deshaw.com>, baseggio@deshaw.com (Franco Baseggio) writes...
>>What about a lefty-righty reliever combo where they can both play
>>left-field?  Has a pitcher ever been moved to a non-pitching position
>>and then back again?  
>
>Gosh, yes!  National League teams have put a pitcher in, say, right field 
>and brought in another pitcher to face a batter, and then moved the first 
>pitcher back in.  I seem to recall Whitey Herzog doing this with the Cards 
>using Todd Worrell as the pitcher/outfielder.
>
Yeah, and he did it in the 1987 World Series of all places.  Scared
the hell out of me!!

Jeff
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: kbanaian@bernard.pitzer.claremont.edu (King Banaian)
Subject: Re: Trade Clemens?
Organization: Pitzer College
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 22:19:16 GMT

In article <By14H4.M9J@math.uwaterloo.ca> fass@math.uwaterloo.ca (The FASS Theatre Company) writes:
>From: fass@math.uwaterloo.ca (The FASS Theatre Company)
>Subject: Re: Trade Clemens?
>Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 19:22:15 GMT
>In article <1992Nov19.105843.10462@netcom.com> arrow@netcom.com (Les Arrow) writes:
>>In article <wall-181192165750@elvis.swarthmore.edu> wall@cc.swarthmore.edu (Swarthmore College Computing Center) writes:

>Is trading Clemens a bad idea?  Currently, Clemens is arguably the 
>best pitcher in baseball and his market value would be incredibly high.
>From the performace of the Sox this year, and rumblings from various 
>disgruntled Red Sox fans, I'm guessing they could use an infusion of youth.
>I'm not sure of the Rocket's age but he has been around for a while and
>will most likely decline in 3 or so years (then again he could be another
>Ryan).   The Sox need to rebuild and this would be a viable way to do
>it.
>
>Okay.  Now that I've caused all die hard Red Sox fans to put contracts
>out on my life for thinking such a thought, let's say you had to trade
>Roger.  What is the Rocket's market value?  What should the Sox get in
>return for the best pitcher in baseball?
>
Can I assume we all heard the Ranger-Red Sox rumor about dealing Juan 
Gonzales for Rocket?  I assume that never was really discussed, since the 
Rangers left Reimer unprotected.  But acutally, if we could have had, say, 
Dean Palmer too, I'd have given mumbling, grumbling approval to this deal.

This really smacks of a Rickey Henderson trade.  When he was traded, the 
comment I remember (was it Lupica?) was "You build a championship team by 
trading for Rickey, not by trading him away."  All things considered, I'll 
keep Rocket, and try to get my players in another way.

Besides, can a man that signs Matt Young REALLY be trusted to get value for 
a Hall of Fame pitcher?

--Sparky
Eric Wedge, 1993 ROY
From: mm42@prism.gatech.EDU (Mark Mitchell)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Nixon & Sanders
Date: 23 Nov 92 17:03:50 GMT
Organization: Ramblin' Wrecks from Georgia Tech

bc@campbell.Gwinnett.COM (campbell) wrote:
}
}   [Otis Nixon] ...
}      has the speed they need in the outfield, he is still the most
}   disruptive baserunner the team has ...

He was certainly very disruptive to a lot of Braves' scoring
opportunites this year, being caught stealing 18 times.  (Versus
41 successful steals, for a dismal S-CS of 5.)

}   I guess it just surprised me to see so many people stongly state
}   that it was stupid to protect Nixon.  Sanders will probably be a
}   good leadoff hitter in his career.  Nixon already is.  And his team
}   won 2 division titles in a row largely because of it.

Without getting into a long argument about Nixon's value as a player
(certainly arguments can be made that he is not even average for an
outfielder), his age and inflated salary would be more than enough 
insurance that no expansion team would take him.  It should have been 
perfectly safe to leave Nixon unprotected.  (I say "should have" 
instead of "would have" because these teams, particularly Colorado, 
made some truly boneheaded picks.) 

-- 
Mark Mitchell           Georgia Tech            mm42@prism.gatech.edu

    "It is destiny, vicker, but you may call it Italy if you like."
From: jm0i@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (JOSEPH ALOYSIUS MCVEIGH)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: The Cat goes to Denver?
Date: 18 Nov 92 23:16:58 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

jlundy@bilbo.encore.com (Joe Lundy) writes:
>According to ESPN, Baylor wanted the Cat because he worked with him in St.
>Louis and he thinks that thin air up there in Denver will help his numbers.

Today the New York Times had their predictions of opening day lineups with a
line about each player. Their comment on The Big Cat(astrohpe):

"Deft fielder with some power."

>Now that we've got Galarraga out of the way and some net.celebrities are
>appeased, whither Jim Acker?  Surely the Rockies can make room on their pitchin
>staff.  Imagine the Meatball master in Colorado....

I'll be putting protective grates on my windows here in PA.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Aloysius McVeigh | "In our mutual sincerity we might be able to show a
   jm0i@.Lehigh.edu     |  road to the salvation of America's very soul."
      "N.I.N.A."        |                                         - Malcolm X
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: rsmith@strobe.ATC.Olivetti.Com (Russ Smith)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Commentary--Rounds2&3, Expansion Draft
Date: 18 Nov 92 17:17:16 GMT
Organization: Olivetti ATC; Cupertino CA, USA

In article <vklqpw=@lynx.unm.edu> kbos@carina.unm.edu (Kurt "Some Guy" Bose) writes:
>> 6) Ryan Hawblitzel, RHP, Chicago (N)     6) Cris Carpenter, RHP, St. Louis
>A safe loss for the Cubs.  It might have been nice to see him on the first
>callback list, but it isn't devastating.  Maybe Russ Smith can answer this one
>better, but I think getting out of Buschland was good for Carpenter.

I assume you mean Carpenter so here goes. He is the only guy we lost who
I regret losing. Carr as you pointed out has been around and had a career
year, and the Cards have plenty of outfielders of comparable talent. Baker
looks like a decent prospect but not a can't miss for sure. Carpenter ahs
never lived up to his pre-draft hype, but when they finally stopped waffling
him between starter and closer of the future, he became a decent middle
reliever.

Cris had some real problems in St. Louis, so much was expected and then they
made him a starter despite him being a 2 pitch pitcher(predictably he 
failed). Then they never really gave him a shot to be the closer and he
lost his standing as their best prospect. At one point 2 years ago he said
he was considering trying to get an NFL job as a punter(he was an allamerican
at Georgia as a punter), to which Whitey Herzog responded "I think that
is a good idea, he sure hasn't pitched very well". Accurate but kind of
harsh.

I sure would rather have kept Cris and lost Ozzie Canseco.

Sure does look dumb in hindsight to keep Rene Arocha in AAA all year so
you won't have to protect him and then wind up having room on your list
to protect a non-prospect like Ozzie. The only thing I can guess is maybe
they plan on trading him to Florida later.




Russ Smith
*******************************************************************************

"What an angry clown!" -- Jerry Seinfeld

********************************************************************************
From: slmdf@cc.usu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Rookie Status Question
Date: 18 Nov 92 16:57:28 GMT
Article-I.D.: cc.1992Nov18.105729.60991
Organization: Utah State University

Could someone tell me what gives a player rookie status? To be more exact,
is Brian Jordan still considered a rookie?

Thanks
TJP (Utah Jazz  92-93 World Champs.......................Maybe)
From: tedward@cs.cornell.edu (Edward [Ted] Fischer)
Subject: Re: A TRUE RUMOR! Sandy Alomar for Pat Borders
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 19:27:12 GMT

In article <1992Nov23.162404.1@vaxa.strath.ac.uk> clgs11@vaxa.strath.ac.uk writes:
>In article <1992Nov23.150609.15256@cs.cornell.edu>, tedward@cs.cornell.edu (Edward [Ted] Fischer) writes:
>> 
>> Sure.  In general, the team which receives the best player wins the
>> deal.  Baerga is clearly more valuable than either Borders or Gruber.
>> And Sandy Alomar ain't too bad himself.
>> 
>> The Indians would be idiots to trade a *young* *superstar* for two 30
>> year old players who never amounted to particularly much even in their
>> prime.
>
>Bob Uecker "never amounted to paticularly much".........
>An AL MVP and a WS MVP add up to a little more !!!!!

Neither Borders nor Gruber has ever won the AL MVP award.

Yes, Borders was the WS MVP.  So what?  Didn't Billy Hatcher win
something like that just a couple years ago?  I certainly don't want
him on my team!

Borders and Gruber at their peaks were above-average players.  Gruber
was even among the top three at his position for a couple years.  But
that is history.  Borders is now average, and Gruber is mediocre.
Trading Baerga for the pair would be a ridiculous giveaway.  Kind of
like trading a two-year-old BMW for a Chevy and a rusty Jeep.

-Valentine
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: bogreen@unixg.ubc.ca (Bo Green)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Reason for dropped-3rd-strike rule?
Date: 17 Nov 92 00:36:04 GMT
Organization: The University of British Columbia
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca

In <1992Nov14.214122.29025@serval.net.wsu.edu> jjungbau@yoda.eecs.wsu.edu (Jim Jungbauer) writes:

>In article <1992Nov14.191941.19821@athena.mit.edu> cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:

>>thanks for an excellent explanation of a rule that has bothered me 
>>for years. i used to view it as some kind of an "add on" rule -

>First, let me second the thanks for the explanation in answer to 
>my original post.


>>so here's a question: is there anything preventing the following from
>>happening: nobody on, 2 strike count. the pitcher uncorks a real bad
>>pitch which is clearly heading for the backstop (a la Charlie Sheen in
>>_Major League_). the batter, seeing this, swings intentionally and runs
>>to first.

>There have been occasions where players have taken advantage of
>this rule just as you describe.  In fact, I'm sure I've seen Willie
>McGee do it a couple of times in the past 5 years or so.


>>does it depend on where the ball is in relation to the timing of the
>>swing? i.e. could the batter wait until the ball is obviously past
>>the catcher before swinging?

>I'm not sure what the rule is here... I imagine it might just come
>down to the umpire's judgement of whether or not the swing was "reasonably"
>close to an actual swing at the ball.  Maybe the person who gave us the
>explanation of the rule can help out here.

>Jim
>Go Vikings, Northstars, Cougars! 


I was watching a Jays/Yankees game this year, and it was raining hard,
with hurricane action closing in on Yankee Stadium. The Jays were leading
at the time, and Alfredo Griffin was batting. He swung at a rain-ball
that was 10 feet off the plate, to try to speed up the inning and get 5
innings in. The umpire called it a ball, presumably because A.G. was not
making an attempt to hit the ball. Easy call in that situation.
If the ball is closer to the plate, the player would have to guess that
the catcher was not going to flag it down, which adds to the already
difficult task of hitting with two strikes. It can be done (see McGee above),
but I would think it's pretty tough to do. 

Bo Green
CHSPR, University of BC,
Vancouver, Canada
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: milleman@athena.cs.uga.edu (Richard Milleman)
Subject: Re: AL MVP
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 13:32:04 GMT

Please excuse my ignorance, but who won the AL MVP? I have been busy in the pastfew days and missed the announcement. Please E-mail me the results. Thanks in   advance.

-- 
 The 1040 Income Tax form under the           *   The Rickster
 President Bill Clinton Administration        *   milleman@athena.cs.uga.edu
 1) How much income did you earn last year?   *
 2) Send it in.                               * 
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: myles@leland.Stanford.EDU (Myles Sussman)
Subject: Reds losses in Expansion Draft
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 00:21:17 GMT

I'm kind of amazed that the Reds managed to lose two pitchers in the
expansion draft when they don't really have that much pitching talent.

I can understand leaving Trevor Hoffman unprotected for round 1.  The
only spot on the list of 15 that was questionable was used for Tim
Pugh.  I'm not a big fan of Tim Pugh, but the Reds haven't got many
prospects for the starting rotation.  Hoffman looked great until 1992,
but the Reds expected more of him this season than he showed.  They
tried to convert him to a starter and it didn't work.

Losing Freddie Benavides in round 2 was no problem.

I can't figure out what made the Reds completely give up on Mo Sanford
and leave him unprotected in round 3.  I can't even think of six other 
guys that I would put ahead of him.  Steve Foster?  Probably.  Bobby
Ayala?  Probably.  Chris Hammond?  Maybe.  That's about it.  Sanford
is getting old for a "prospect", but until 1992 he was progressing
nicely.  Lots of strikeouts, low ERA, many wins.  He had control
problems.  His debut in 1991 was promising.  He couldn't make the cut
this spring and had a miserable year in Nashville, and the Reds acted
like he had fallen off the planet.  They didn't even invite him to
Instructional League this year.

The other big news of the day was a surprise.  By trading Charlton,
the Reds leave their bullpen with a huge left-handed hole.  Ruskin,
Cadaret, Bolton, and Matt Grott are the leading candidates.  Yikes!
Mitchell is still above average offensively, but he's a huge risk for
(among other things) the injury list.  I guess he fits in well with
the other Reds.  :-)  I had been hoping that the Reds were serious
about moving Willie Greene to left field next year, or that they would
make room for Tim Costo.  Or that they would trade Charlton for Kent
Mercker and Keith Mitchell.  :-)

Overall, for a team that was closer to the top of the NL in runs
scored and closer to the bottom in ERA, it is hard to understand why
the Reds have been so concerned with their offense in the trades and
in the expansion draft.  Plus, they got rid of two lefties (O'Neill
and Charlton) and they don't have a ready supply of lefties.

Myles Sussman
Stanford U
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball