HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: spira@panix.com (Greg "Sarcasm Is A Way Of Life" Spira)
Subject: Re: Mets 92
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 17:28:20 GMT
Organization: Boo! 

In article <1992Dec17.222343.3332@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <17DEC199216125109@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu> doctor8@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu (Jason Abner Miller) writes:
>>
>>	When Jeff Torborg arrived from Chicago late one night in 1991, 
>>the popular sentiment was that the Mets were going to run away with
>>the whole thing.  Gooden, Cone, Fernandez, Saberhagen in the starting
>>staff, John Franco in the pen, Bobby Bonilla and Eddie Murray added to
>>the lineup, with Bill Pecota and Willie Randolph to provide some sort
>>of up-the-middle stability.
>
>Whose popular sentiment?  The r.s.bb popular sentiment was that the
>Expos had the best team in the NL East, then the Pirates, and the Mets
>had no hope of contending because they were fielding the 1985 All-Stars.
>
>I mean, Gooden hasn't been a good pitcher since 1989, and he hasn't
>been a *great* pitcher since 1986.  He had precisely the 1992 that
>one could expect from him.  Maybe even a little better.
>
>Pecota was a mediocre 32-yo journeyman, Randolph was coming off a great
>year in Milwaukee, but was going to be 38, and it was easy enough to guess
>that he wasn't going to repeat it, Howard Johnson was expected to decline,
>Murray was 36 and a below-average first-baseman who had two bad years out
>of the last three.  The only real surprise was (1) how dramatic HoJo's
>decline was, and (2) Bonilla was a bit worse than expected, though still
>much better than people in NY thought. 
>
Ted, I think you're exagerrating.  Yes, the only real huge below
expectations performance was HoJo.  But you're forgetting that every
single regular performed below what could/should have been expected.
Every single player on the team - Bonilla, HoJo, Schofield, Murray,
Magadan, Pecota, Coleman, Randolph, Hundley - contributed less than
STATS projected them to.  Saberhagen, one of the best 5 starters in
baseball, contributed nothing.  Franco did little.  No one on the
staff really did better than expected except El Sid.

While there were a lot of people here who felt the Mets would not win,
I would bet that most of the posters, including 75% of the analyst-
types, thought they would contend.

Greg 

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: wall@cc.swarthmore.edu (Matthew Wall)
Subject: Re: Braves land Maddox !!
Followup-To: rec.sport.baseball
Organization: Swarthmore College Computing CenterCenter
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 19:13:25 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.175809.1433@cs.cornell.edu>, tedward@cs.cornell.edu
(Edward [Ted] Fischer) wrote:
> 
> Meanwhile, the Braves have the following top-level prospects:
> 
> Klesko looks good at 1B, despite a not-incredibly-great 1992 season.
> Jones is highly touted as their shortstop of the future.
> Oliva looks *very* good for 3B in a year or two.
> Nieves (?) plays the outfield.
> Mitchell would be starting for most teams.
> And aren't I forgetting an outfielder or two?
> Lopez doesn't look *bad* at catcher.

Mike Kelly; Glanville at AA. Mel Nieves might be ready in a year or so. And
they just traded for what's his name, the third base prospect from Texas in
the Leibrandt deal.

The Braves could be *better* in '94 than they are in '93, because they only
have an improving offensive outlook.

- matt


---------------------------------------------------------
This space left intentionally blank until spring training.
From: sunils@bmerh703.bnr.ca (Sunil Sanwalka)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: fair is fair: i believe cone
Date: 16 Dec 92 19:09:33 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada

When there is a lockout players salaries will not be paid.
This is why the upfront money is so attractive to player
and such a big risk to the team.

The possiblility of a lock is growing very significant.
Thus the risk of having to pay out 9mil this year with no 
income is too big a risk for the jays to take.

The Jays organization is in a pretty good position, they make
money or break even pretty much every year. The owners
( a brewery, a bank, etc ) get big advertising boost through
being the official ____ of the blue jays. And their initial
investment is probably appreciating every year.
I think the owners would like to keep this cosy arrangement 
going for as long as possible with out jepordizing the free benefits above. 

From what I heard Cone gave the jays a chance to match the offer
but hte Jays said they just couldn't do it. I don't think they said 
that because they thought Dave Stewart was a better deal than cone,
I think it was just because they weren't willing to take that kind 
of risk with theiir money.

Sunil
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: nlu@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu)
Subject: Re: KEY SIGNS WITH YANKEES
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 23:46:09 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.090143.4643@spcvxb.spc.edu> 5checki_m@spcvxb.spc.edu writes:
>
>After waking up this morning, I saw that Toronto Blue Jays Pitcher Jimmy Key 
>signed a 4 year, 18 million dollar deal with the New York Yankees.  This shores 
>up the Yankee rotation, and gives them three quality starting pitchers. Now if 
>they could only get another, and obtain Joe Orsulak via free agency, might we 
>be talking about a contender.  Comments are welcome!!!!!

They really don't need another pitcher; they have at least 6 quality pitchers,
from what I see (Abbott, Key, Perez, Militello, Wickman, and Kaminiecki), and
Brien Taylor should be ready soon.

Now, if they obtain Joe Orsulak via free agency, then we *won't* be talking
about a contender.  (Come on, Orsulak displacing O'Neill, Williams, or
Tartabull?)

===============================================================================
GO CALIFORNIA ANGELS!
===============================================================================
Nelson Lu (claudius@leland.stanford.edu)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: jesse@masc.rice.edu (Jesse Elliott Money)
Subject: Re: Braves Sign Maddux, LOSE 93 SERIES!!!!!!!!
Organization: Dept. of Math. Sciences, Rice University
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 02:56:54 GMT


Actually, Mike Bielecki signed a minor league contract with the Cleveland 
Indians recently, so we're down to 2 ex-Cubs.
From: bspencer@cs.mcgill.ca (Brian SPENCER)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Cordero
Date: 14 Dec 92 05:44:23 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: SOCS - Mcgill University, Montreal, Canada

For those who care, I had replied to a post regarding Wilfredo Cordero.
I was subsequently called a non-Expos fan. In my defense, All I am
saying is that Cordero Has some problems, like being unable to turn a
smooth double play. I am not denying that he won't be great...jt not
next year, which is when the Expos can't afford to make any mistakes.
Most of the people singing the prasises of Cordero as being an All-Star
player next year are not from Montreal and have only seen him play in a
handful of games. Come to Montreal and listen to the talk-in radio
shows. People here are very nervous about Cordero...who'll know better:
people who've seen him play a lot of games, or people who've seen him in
a handful of games. Don't get me wrong. I hope Cordero plays amazing
next season. But realistically, every organization has a player breaking
in who is touted as being a shoe-in for the Hall-of Fame. Unfortunately,
most don't make it. The best thing to do is avoid speculation, wait
until next season, and then E-mail the I-told-you-so's.

Brian Spencer (bspencer@binkley.cs.mcgill.ca)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Mattingly discussion, take 2.
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 06:47:49 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.170850.14828@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu> akamholz@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Andrew E Kamholz) writes:
>In article <1992Dec17.161922.25289@Princeton.EDU> roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec17.055227.4101@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu> akamholz@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Andrew E Kamholz) writes:

>>Is that fair to all the better first-basemen?  Gold gloves are generally
>>awarded by reflex...

>When I said what I did about his defensive abilities, I left it as a given
>that he has the best relexes.

Um, I was talking about the voters, who *vote* reflexively.

As for his reflexes, I wouldn't know, not having tested them or seen
results of such tests.  On the other hand, I don't care much, seeing 
as it doesn't matter whether reflexes, positioning, or speed is what
 gets you to the ball fastest.  Getting there however you do it is
the key.

> There have been many times that, while watching
>on both Yankee TV and National (ESPN) TV, Kevin Maas missed a ball (as in
>dove for it but didn't get it) and the announcers said that Mattingly would
>have had it if he had been in the field. There is no first baseman with a
>better arm or better range or better mental abilities than Don Mattingly.

Aside from Olerud, McGwire, and several others for range, a fair number
of other strong arms, and who *cares* what he's thinking out there?
What makes you say that MAttingly fields better than all others? 

>>>I say bat him third. With Williams and Boggs batting ahead of him, he is
>>>going to have a lot more runners on base than he's had in the last few years.

>>Will he make fewer outs because of that?   This is the problem, after
>>all; and making outs with men on is no better than making outs with the
>>bases empty.  I say bat him sixth, and get someone who gets on more
>>often to hit third.  

>At worst, he'll hit .280; At best, he'll hit .350; realistically, if
>he is finally healthy, he'll hit around .310. None of these figures is
>that bad for a third place hitter, especially one who has a great career
>average with men on base.

And three years of miserable on-base average, which is remarkably similar to 
runner-stranding average.  He's not a #3 hitter if he doesn't get on
base more often.

And if you think he's going to hit .350 under any circumstances -- he 
did that, what, once when he was younger and healthier? -- dream on.

Now, about his lost power (something else a #3 should have more of)...

Roger
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: mjones@fenway.aix.kingston.ibm.com (Mike Jones)
Subject: Re: Worrell to the Dodgers!!!!
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 92 21:49:34 GMT
Distribution: na
Reply-To: mjones@donald.aix.kingston.ibm.com
Organization: IBM Corp. Kingston NY

In article <1garkmINNe9i@caldera.usc.edu> dzappala@caldera.usc.edu (Daniel Zappala) writes:
>
>The only way to develop a potentially great leadoff hitter is to leave him
>there, not drop him to seventh.  When Offerman was moved to the top of the
>lineup, he really took off.  I'm sure his stats were in a different world
>when he was leading off.  Butler was also a monster hitting second.  In
>any case, the Dodgers are committed to leaving Offerman at the top.  He
>showed plenty of promise with the bat.  

Yeah? Here's Offerman's splits:
             AVG  AB 2B 3B HR BB  K  OBP  SLG
Batting #1  .265 268 11  3  1 28 50 .332 .340
Batting #8  .258 264  9  5  0 28 47 .329 .330
.332 still blows chunks for a leadoff hitter. Interestingly, Butler did seem
to like batting second. His splits:
             AVG  AB 2B 3B HR BB  K  OBP  SLG
Batting #1  .269 324  6  7  1 53 46 .374 .340
Batting #2  .362 224  8  4  3 40 20 .460 .460
Now, I'm not going to claim that "Butler hits better as the #2 hitter" based
on 224 AB's, but the difference is striking enough that I'd give him some
time at #2 next year IF I had another leadoff hitter. Say, someone within 20
points of Butler's OBP when leading off.

   Mike Jones  |  AIX/ESA Development  |  mjones@donald.aix.kingston.ibm.com

He had larceny in his heart, but his feet were honest.
	- Bugs Baer, on plodding baserunner Ping Bodie
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: nlu@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu)
Subject: Re: Blue Jays-Gillick
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 19:11:54 GMT

In article <Dec.18.11.07.29.1992.7089@pilot.njin.net> gajarsky@pilot.njin.net (Bob Gajarsky - Hobokenite) writes:
>One thing I totally forgot.
>
>If the Jays play Darnell Coles, at third, full time, people will be
> shocked at how well he hits.
>
>Coles can flat out play, and never received consistent opportunities.
> He played well from time to time, and for various reasons, never
> was allowed to continue playing.

That's because he sucked.

And we might be surprised by how well he "hits," but he will never take a
walk.  (3 in 144 PA last season)

===============================================================================
GO CALIFORNIA ANGELS!
===============================================================================
Nelson Lu (claudius@leland.stanford.edu)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: tedward@cs.cornell.edu (Edward [Ted] Fischer)
Subject: Re: Mike Moore to Detroit
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 15:22:32 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.230236.14274@HQ.Ileaf.COM> raczka@HQ.Ileaf.COM (christopher raczka) writes:
>
>   I'am very suprised that Moore signed with Detroit
>   they are far from 'contenders'

I'm surprised they offered such a weak pitcher so much money.

Consider the following two pitchers...  (I will normalize them both
to the same IP totals for comparison):

Career totals through 1991:

#1: 115 W, 130 L, 2108 IP, 2071 H, 807 BB, 1335 K, 185 HR, 4.06 ERA
#2: 139 W, 110 L, 2108 IP, 2160 H, 776 BB, 1205 K, 162 HR, 4.01 ERA

Yes, Moore is the upper line.  The other is a pitcher who is two years
younger, and signed for peanuts.  He had some glory years on a strong
team, then saw his career go down the toilet when he left via free agency
to a team with less of a bullpen and no offense to speak of.  Last year,
pitcher #2 had a better season, IMHO, though that point is debatable.

Who is pitcher number two?

The inimitable Storm Davis, who replaces Mike Moore in Oakland.  They
may not be twins, but are they *that* different?  Storm Davis gives up
more hits, but fewer walks and fewer HRs.  I think that Detroit will
be sorry, and Oakland fans will be happy to have Davis back.

>   After Moore and Gullickson the pitching is thin

Why qualify it?  Despite the Detroit offense, Gullickson only managed
to win 14 games last year.  NOT impressive.  There are hundreds of
pitchers who could win 14 games given that kind of support.

I'd say that the Detroit pitching staff is currently vacant.  Doherty
and Haas did okay last year, but they don't even have *adequate* K
totals.  I doubt they'll be successful long.  Gullickson might
rebound, or he might continue his slide.  Moore is going to be toast
in homer-friendly Detroit.  Tanana?  Leiter?  Walt Terrible?  Ugh.

>   Now if they can resign Cecil ...

I'd wait until the end of the season.  He is coming off of a very poor
year, and asking for a *lot* of money.

-Valentine
From: chee1l5@Jane.UH.EDU
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Brave staff greatest in recent history?
Date: 11 Dec 1992 20:39:39 GMT
Organization: University of Houston
Reply-To: chee1l5@Jane.UH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: jane.uh.edu

Nelson writes

>and these are last year's ERAs for the projected Atlanta starters:
>
>P. Smith:	2.05
>Maddux:	2.18
>Glavine:	2.76
>Smoltz:	2.85
>Avery:		3.20


Avery's ERA crept up into the three's?  Let's shoot the bastard.

Sam

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: franjion@spot.Colorado.EDU (John Franjione)
Subject: Re: Can you go home again? (wasRe: ward to atlant
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 05:56:37 GMT

s_bean@oz.plymouth.edu (Shaun P. Bean) writes:

>In article <19DEC199215593568@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu> yankees@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu (Kenneth M Gelfand) writes:

>Will the Red Sox try and get Plantier back in 12 years?  Maybe if
>Gorman is still around :(

If Lou is still around, I say no way.  Plantier will be way too young
at that point still.  Lou will wait until he's 39 or 40.  And offer
him a big contract too.

John Franjione
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: I will, forever, truly hate the Toronto Blue Jays
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 03:43:07 GMT

In article <31#r0!b@lynx.unm.edu> kbos@carina.unm.edu (K. Mitchell Bose) writes:
>In article <1992Dec11.164832.19666@athena.mit.edu> cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec11.061757.15283@panix.com> spira@panix.com (Greg "Sarcasm Is A Way Of Life" Spira) writes:
>>>In <1992Dec10.202727.21312@athena.mit.edu> cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>>>
>>>Actually, I believe the Blue Jays offered a start to Eichhorn for
>>>this purpose, and Eichhorn turned it down, saying that if felt
>>>Clemens deserved the ERA title a lot more anyway.
>>
>>wow! i'd love to know if this is true.
>>if it is, it must be one of the most classy things i've heard a 
>>major leaguer do in a long time. never mind other ML players,
>>can you imagine *anyone* passing up a place in the record book
>>to play out the rest of one's career in relative 
>>obscurity? i can't honestly say i would.
>
>How selfish.  The team wants one of the best pitchers in the AL ERA-wise to
>start a game, and the man REFUSES!?!?!?!  The guy has no thought to what's best 
>for the team, thinking more about satisfying his own putrid inferiority complex
>than what's best for the team.  I wonder how his teammates felt knowing that
>their best pitcher *refused* to pitch, allowing his team to finish one game out
>of third, dooming his team to the lower division.  What a selfish bastard.  I'd
>trade him, or release him...
>
>Just presenting an alternate viewpoint.  If this is true, it shows a minor
>league attitude.  Considering his carrer for the next few years after that, one
>wonders if that attitude wasn't justifiable.  As he so amply proved, he didn't
>deserve to be ranked ahead of Clemens...

that's ridiculous (the serious part i mean). how was he showing a
minor league attitude? the jays were out of it. if starting him was
so useful to the team, they would have asked him earlier. besides,
there are just some people who don't care about personal stats. is there
something wrong with that? there's nothing wrong with those who do care,
but nothing wrong the other way either. modesty = minor league attitude?
please.

regarding "his career afterwards".. that was probably due to his being
overused, which raises the possibility that he was tired at the end
of the season from pitching so many innings. which may have been one
reason why he refused the start, which was voluntary and not important
to the jays in the first place.

--
charles
From: sgs@stein.u.washington.edu (Steven Smith)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Cito- Gillick
Date: 17 Dec 92 02:20:52 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Dec17.022052.13212
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <18596@mindlink.bc.ca> Edward_Lunny@mindlink.bc.ca (Edward Lunny) writes:
>Since I started this one, I'd like to pass on something my dad told me about
>managers and their influence. He was a sports writer in Montreal. He said
>every team is going to win 60 games no matter who is managing and every team
>is going to lose 60 no matter what.  There are only 40 or so games up for
>grabs each year.
>--
>
> " Ted "

I'm not sure why it's just come up for me, but I'm compelled to ask the assembled 
readers of this group if they are aware of a word or phrase, in any language, that 
could have as its definition:

"A statement that, while sounding amazingly wise and insightful in its initial
impact, is absolutely inapplicable and utterly useless in practice."

I don't know what it is, but every time I've heard this particular baseball
truism, I've thought that there must be some such word.

No offense intended, "Ted". Perhaps you will be the one that can finally 
explain to me what exactly this old saw is supposed to tell me.


--Steve
-- 
 sgs@u.washington.edu             * "The tall people want what the 
 Steve Smith                      *  short people got."
 University of Washington HR-20   *    --D. Wiggin-"Philosophy of the World"	 
 Seattle, WA 98195                *
From: ez027993@dale.ucdavis.edu (Gary Throwing Hard Huckabay)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Blue Jays-Gillick
Date: 16 Dec 92 22:47:04 GMT
Organization: People Who Realize Limbaugh's A Mindless Bozo, Ltd.

(Roger "Don't like my posting?  Call 1-800-TEQUILA!" Maynard) writes:
>Molitor won't play 90 games this year.

If healthy to start the season, I'll take this bet.  If Molitor plays
less than 90, you win.  If 90 or more, I do.  What are the stakes, Rog?

>Right on Pat!  Let's rebuild!  And when the jays go down the toilet this
>year all the stathead dorks in this group will be calling for Cito's head.

Nothing quite like a deftly-inserted ad hominem.  Of course, you'll probably
back away from it now...  How about NAMING some names?  Who do you want
to call a dork?
-- 
*     Gary Huckabay     * "He's just another Limbot.  Ignore him, and he'll *
* "Entering his prime." *  go away - kind of like a festering cold sore."   *
* "Ardent feminist, and * "Do you think they'll let him breed?"             *
*     proud of it."     * "Only in captivity.  Don't sweat it."             *
From: schadsey@slate.mines.colorado.edu (Slayer)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: destination of players
Date: 17 Dec 92 14:35:50 GMT
Organization: Colorado School of Mines

Does anybody know whether or not Derek Hacopian or Mike Smith (U. of
Maryland and U. Indiana, respectively), were drafted in baseball's amateur
draft last June? If so, what team picked them up? If not, where are they
now?
Please reply to schadsey@slate.mines.colorado.edu

thanks....
From: akamholz@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Andrew E Kamholz)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Statheads and park effects
Date: 20 Dec 92 21:16:28 GMT
Organization: HAC - Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore

Look, you fuck, I said MAYBE. Reread what I wrote and look at what you
wrote and decide if my tone of writing deserved the kind of response you
gave.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball