HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dzappala@caldera.usc.edu (Daniel Zappala)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Dodgers sign Parrish and Ritchie
Date: 10 Jan 93 02:45:07 GMT
Reply-To: dzappala@caldera.usc.edu (Daniel Zappala)
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: caldera.usc.edu


In article <1ilr19INNdv6@mizar.usc.edu>, pcaster@mizar.usc.edu (Dodger) writes:
|> 
|> Consider this one.  Mike Scioscia is considered washed up by Claire
|> at what, age 32?  So Claire goes out and signs Lance Parrish, age 36.
|> Yeah, that makes a lot of sense to me.  Uh huh!

Scioscia was unwilling to backup Hernandez and Piazza as they fight
for the starting job.  They let go of him so he could try to get
more playing time elsewhere.  I think they were correct in making
that decision.

Parrish, however, appears willing to be a backup for their younger
catchers.  And he came cheap ($600,000 if he makes the major league
roster).

|> 
|> And....considering those pitching rich Philadelphia Phillies, who
|> allowed us to sign Kevin Gross (how'd they let such talent get away?)
|> Claire again takes talent from those Phils, signing Ritchie.  Geez...
|> guess that will make up for the loss of Mike Morgan.  yeah...right!

I suspect they got Ritchie because he is left-handed and they need a
lefty in the pen.  He has an ERA around 3.00.

|> 
|> These are surely the most trying times in the past 4 decades for 
|> us Dodger fans <heavy sigh>

I'll hold off until we see them play.  Then again, I haven't been around
for 4 decades yet.  Only a quarter of a century. :-)


Daniel
daniel@caldera.usc.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: labuskif@ame_lab.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Frank Labuski)
Subject: BRAVES/METS
Organization: PictureTel Corporation
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 20:57:19 GMT

Last night on SportChannel they replayed the July 4, 1985 game between the 
Braves and the Mets.  What a wild game, I had forgotten all about it.
Terry Harper of the Braves hit a two out, two run homer in the bottom of the 
13th to tie it up 10-10.  Afetr the Mets went up 11-10 in the top of the 18th, 
the Braves were down to their last out.  With noone else to pinch hit, they 
were forced to keep their pitcher, Rick Camp, in as their last hope.  Sure
enough, Camp hit a two out, two strike homer to send the game to the 
19th.  The Mets scored five in the top of the inning.  The Braves rally came 
up short when they only scored twice and Camp, representing the tying run 
again, struck out.  Mets 16-13.  Great game!!  
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: steph@pegasus.cs.uiuc.edu (Dale Stephenson)
Subject: Re: defensive measures of performance (was -- Re: Lists: The Best Players In Baseeball)
Keywords: RF, DA, ???
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 19:57:01 GMT

In <1993Jan9.044807.19709@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:

>In article <steph.726550888@pegasus.cs.uiuc.edu> steph@pegasus.cs.uiuc.edu (Dale Stephenson) writes:
>>>all i will say is that a lousy statistic is *worse* than no statistic at all.
>>>i believe that should be self-evident.
>>
>>It depends *how* lousy the statistic.  If it says nothing more than blind picks
>>would, it is a bad statistic.  If it actually runs counter to reality, it is
>>evil.  If it is positive, it has some value.  Kind of like this:
>>
>>(If player value could be accurately measured)
>>
>>            Reality     Good       Bad       Lousy, but useful     Evil
>>A             1          1.2        2             1.75              4
>>B             2          1.9        2             1.83              3
>>C             3          3.0        2             2.75              2
>>D             4          3.3        2             2.58              1

>I disagree -- the evil statistic is clearly more useful than any of the
>set {good, bad, lousy}.  As Bill James's wife once said, "If I don't know
>whether it's better to have a high or low score in a certain statistic,
>I just look for Seattle."

You're right -- as soon as we recognize the evil stat for what it is, and
invert the numbers, it's the most accurate one there.  I should have inverted
the "Lousy, but Useful" results.

-- 
Dale J. Stephenson |*| (steph@cs.uiuc.edu) |*| Baseball fanatic

  "It is considered good to look wise, especially when not 
   overburdened with information" -- J. Golden Kimball
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: maynard@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Roger Maynard)
Subject: Re: HOF
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Laurentian University, Sudbury, ON
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 02:27:58 GMT

In <C0Cz3C.EuK@cs.uiuc.edu> epstein@cs.uiuc.edu (Milt Epstein) writes:

>Here is a list I saw:

This is how I would vote (as if anyone cares...)

>        Dick Allen, Vida Blue, Bobby Bonds, Ken Boyer, x-Rick Burleson,
         yep         yep        nope         nope       get serious
>x-Bill Campbell, Orlando Cepeda, x-Ron Cey, x-Cecil Cooper, x-Doug
   nope           yep             nope       nope            nope
>DeCinces, Curt Flood, George Foster, x-Steve Garvey, x-Reggie Jackson,
           yep         yep            nope            yep
>Jim Kaat, Mickey Lolich, x-Dave Lopes, x-Hal McRae, x-Bill Madlock,
 yep       nope           yep           nope         nope
>x-Gary Matthews, Minnie Minoso, Thurman Munson, x-Phil Niekro, Tony
   nope           nope           yep             yep 
>Oliva, Tony Perez, Vada Pinson, x-Darrell Porter, Ron Santo, Rusty
 yep    yep         yep         nope               yep 
>Staub, x-Andre Thornton, Luis Tiant, Joe Torre.
 nope   nope              nope        nope

rm

-- 
Roger Maynard
maynard@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: DONS000 <DONS@UNB.CA>
Subject: How "Babe" Ruth got his name
Organization: The University of New Brunswick
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 22:09:20 GMT

>>This raises the more interesting question of where Babe Ruth
>>got *his* nickname. Was he named after the candy bar? After
>>President Cleveland's daughter? Or was Ruth's nickname merely
>>a curious coincidence?
>
>Hey I know the answer to this.  Babe Ruth started playing ball for
>a minor league team here in Baltimmore whose manager was famous for
>bringing really young players into the league.  Supposedly when he
>started (at the age of 16-17) someone from the crowd yelled, "Is this
>one of your new babes" and the name stuck.  There is at least one other
>player whose nick-name of Babe also came through the association with
>this minor league team (it is of course possible that the nickname
>stcuk because of the candy bar/or the president's daughter etc)
>
>I can dig up the details if you want; this is from memory.
>>
>>Dave Eisen                               Sequoia Peripherals: (415) 967-5644
>
> _The Dickson Baseball Dictionary_ backs the story that Babe Ruth
> originally got his nickname Babe when he joined the Baltimore
> Orioles in 1914.  Dickson quotes the 1833 edition of _Who's Who in
>.Baseball_: "Coach Steinman, who was owner [Jack] Dunn's right hand
>.man, greeted the big fellow when he came into the ball yard,
  shouting to the other Baltimoreans: 'Boys, here Jack's New Babe!'"

  Dickson adds: "In his autobiography, _The Babe Ruth Story_, Ruth
  pointed out that the 'clincher' came a few days later when he was
  playing with the controls of a hotel elevator.  After almost
  decapitating himself, Ruth was chewed out by Dunn.  One of the
  older players, taking pity on him, called him a babe in the woods.
  'After that,' said Ruth, 'they all called me Babe.'"

  "Ruth was not the only player to be called Babe.  Probably the most
  famous was Floyd. C. 'Babe' Herman who was also known as 'the
  other Babe."

  Don Soucy

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: range factor question
Originator: news@nimaster
Keywords: range factor
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 02:37:25 GMT

In<21101@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> watnik@wald.ucdavis.edu (Mitchell Watnik) writes:
>In <roney.726456466@sfu.ca> roney@selkirk.sfu.ca (Chris J. Roney) writes:

>>    I have a question about "range factor".  If I understand
>>correctly, a major (THE major?) component of this is the number of
>>defensive plays made.  Last year I was a little surprised at how low
>>the number of plays made were for several players (Roberto Alomar
>>being one).  One possible pattern I noticed was that a number of these
>>surprises were infielders playing on artificial turf.  This sort of
>>made sense to me, since it seems possible that more balls scoot
>>through the infield and are unplayable on turf.  What I'm wondering
>>is 1) does anybody know if this is a real effect? and 2) if it is,
>>does it get accounted for in "range factor"?
>>     Thanks!

>Actually, in the paper I read (USA Today "Baseball Weekly"), the range
>factor is defensive chances (plays made + errors).  There is no accounting

I never did figure out why you'd want to count errors.  It certainly
gives a bigger picture of "range" to include them, but not a more *useful*
one.

>for home turf--  except in the interpretation!  In every article I've
>seen, they say that Robbie Alomar's range is better than his score on this
>scale.  On the other hand, Jose Oopserman has absolutely no excuse for his
>low range score!  This statistic is interesting, but not as useful as,
>say, fielding percentage.

Which has about as much use as, say, SAT scores in measuring defense.

Fielding percentage is useless.  

It measures the complete wrong thing.  It doesn't measure how good a
fielder you are, it measures how well you field a certain percentage of
balls.  (That is, the balls you choose to make an attempt on, or the
balls hit right to you.)

As such, it is meaningless.  It makes an arbitrary distinction between
balls you don't field and balls you don't field.  One is called an
error, and one is called a hit.  But why?  The results for the team are
the same, and yet you're penalized for missing a ball that a guy in the
booth thinks you should have had, but not for a ball that you watch go
past you.

It's like calculating batting average while ignoring strikeouts.  You're
leaving off a major portion of the denominator.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Is it too early to start making predictions for 1993?
niepornt@phoenix.    | Probably, but that never stopped me before.
   princeton.edu     | ALE: Baltimore ALW: Chicago NLE: Montreal NLW: Atlanta
Baltimore Orioles 93 | AL MVP: Cal Ripken  AL Cy Young: Mike Mussina
From: kbos@carina.unm.edu (K. Mitchell Bose)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Hall of Fame voting (read - Disgusted)
Date: 12 Jan 1993 02:11:31 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque
NNTP-Posting-Host: carina.unm.edu

In article <C0pKxy.FrB@panix.com> spira@panix.com (Greg Spira) writes:
>
>But why is it that people have such blinders on when it comes to Nolan
>Ryan?  It makes Don Mattingly syndrome look like a minor thing by
>comparison.
>
Do you mean to say that you object to the idea of Nolan Ryan in the Hall?

If I were a voter, I'd vote for Ryan because:

1) He showed remarkable durability _as a power pitcher_ in the modern era.
   Fewer than 20 pitchers have pitched in as many games as Ryan; only Cy
   Young has started more, and by the end of his career might end up number
   four in terms of innings pitched, behind only Cy Young, Walter Johnson,
   and Pud Galvin.
2) After 5000 innings, he still throws a hard fastball, and is still a feared
   strikeout pitcher.
3) Ryan is twelfth in wins and third in losses; Niekro is fourteenth in wins
   and fourth in losses.  I don't see W-L Pct. as any kind of factor.
4) Believe it or not, he has an outside shot at 6000 strikeouts.
5) He is (or was, at the time I saw the last numbers) the hardest pitcher to
   hit _in history_.  
6) Seven no-hitters.

Ryan's no Whitey Ford or Lefty Grove.  But he can be in my Hall anytime.


-- 
Kurt Bose (as in Daisy, not Rose) * kbos@carina.unm.edu * Walks: not that sexy.
"Halt!  Based on conclusive dental evidence that truly bites, I arrest you 
 hereby for the murdering of the dead Belzic Tascar.  I am obliged to warn you 
 that my weapons are registered as offensive fronds!!"- R.M.Allen, "Monkey See"
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Lies about attendance (Was Speculation Of A Coming Orioles Sale)
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 06:29:42 GMT

In article <5JAN93.08181417@wums.wustl.edu> peirick_j@wums.wustl.edu writes:
>Earlier, niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) noted that...
 
>>Record attendance, AGAIN, even during a recession, with ever increasing
>>ticket prices, and the owners expect us to believe baseball is in trouble.
 
>>If sportswriters had any pretension of being journalists, they'd report
>>*these* things, rather than the lies they print.
 
>>(Yes, lies.  I've actually seen sportswriters claiming attendance is down.)

>Well, you know, those would not be lies in St. Louis.  We have had declining
>attendance for three years now.  I am virtually certain that attendance was 
>down in LA this year as well.  Others may chime in as they see fit.

>Your mileage may vary.  Sweeping generalizations such as Mr. Nieporent's
>should be avoided whenever possible.

Of course attendance was down in some cities.  This is to be expected.
That certainly doesn't imply baseball is in trouble.

Mediots have been claiming that baseball attendance is down.  And it
just isn't true.

If Ford's profits increase $50 million with the Taurus but decrease by
$30 million on the Escort, would it be true to claim that car sales are 
down and that Ford is in trouble?

Or would it make sense to say that Ford is doing quite well -- they made
$20 million more than last year!

EVERY year, attendence is down in some cities and up in others.  But as
long as the total is higher than before, it doesn't make sense to say
that baseball has shrinking attendance, now does it?

We're talking about a time when ticket prices are rising rapidly,
according to the papers, and there is a recession going on.  And yet,
more and more people go see baseball games every year, and baseball is
in trouble?

Get real.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Is it too early to start making predictions for 1993?
niepornt@phoenix.    | Probably, but that never stopped me before.
   princeton.edu     | ALE: Baltimore ALW: Chicago NLE: Montreal NLW: Atlanta
Baltimore Orioles 93 | AL MVP: Cal Ripken  AL Cy Young: Mike Mussina
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: The Monthly Mattingly Flame War
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 06:07:33 GMT

In article <C0MI1C.1Iz@news.iastate.edu> vbdiep@iastate.edu (Vinh Diep) writes:
>In article <1993Jan10.015942.29092@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>In article <C0M6pC.IIp@news.iastate.edu> vbdiep@iastate.edu (Vinh Diep) writes:
>>>	While many of you are arguing about Will Clark and Frank Thomas, and 
>>>one is better than the other, one player that some of you seem to ignore will
>>>surprise baseball fans in 1993. That All-Star first-baseman is DON MATTINGLY.
>>
>>You meant 1983, right?  
>	I did not mean anything. I was just trying to cause some controversies
>among baseball fans. That was all.

To cause a controversy you have to say something controversial.  Saying
Don Mattingly will be the best first baseman in 1993 isn't controversial,
it's just wrong.  And if you're not willing to back up your assertions,
all you've accomplished is to get a lot of people mad at you -- there's
no discussion when you say "Don Mattingly should be considered the best 
first baseman in baseball" and then put your fingers in your ears and
ignore everyone's refutations and just say "I wanted to create a
controversy."  A controversy isn't the mere gainsaying of what the 
other person says, it's an exchange of thoughts and evidence in an attempt
to reach a conclusion.

>>What are you smoking? 
>
>	I'm not smoking anything. May I ask "What were you thinking at the
>time?"

I was thinking that you're an unthinking bozo.  Your latest two posts
just confirmed that all you want to do is waste people's time.

>>My other question is why Mattingly fans are the most self-delusional
>>people on the face of the earth.  Not even Cecil Fielder generates
>>such myopia, and he's only had one below-average season, rather than 
>>three in a row. 
>	
>	Who cares about the past. 

It's often a good predictor for the future.  For example, you just posted
three consecutive obnoxious posts devoid of thought, the latest of which
chose to ignore all of the actual discussion on the topic at hand, and I 
can make a safe prediction that your next post will be equally unworthy 
of being read.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
never shout movie in a crowded firestation
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Hall of Fame voting (read - Disgusted)
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 16:57:54 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.071811.3625@athena.mit.edu> frisch1@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan Katz) writes:
>Niekro a definite Hall of Famer?  I think not.
>1) He was _never_ a dominant player in any year.   I don't refer specifically to
>his stats, either.  Let's just say that there was never a time when teams were
>'afraid' to face him, like teams nowaday are 'afraid' of Clemens and the way
>teams used to feel about Gooden (Ah, those were the days...)

Well, winning 20 makes up for lack of fear.  And, yes, many batters have,
over the years, expressed a great deal of dread regarding an outing vs.
the knuckler. 

>2) Just check out the number of losses he had.  And don't give me that 'bad team'
>crap.  Ryan and Carlton had the same problem, and managed to overcome it at least
>somewhat.

Is his W-L that much worse than Ryan's?  As for Carlton, I seem to recall
his teams winning five divisions, two pennant, a WS -- and when did he
join the Cards?

>3) Check out his lifetime ERA.  It's nothing to get excited about, though it is
>certainly above average.

Check out Atlanta Fulton County Stadium.  Ryan spent most of his career 
with the Big A or the Astrodome as his home park.

>Anyway, Niekro may well belong in the Hall.  However, to say he is a definite HOF
>seems misguided.  To say that he deserves it more than Reggie is just plain
>stupid!

Agreed on the last point.  But Niekro is a heck of a lot better than 
many pitchers who are in, and meets lots of criteria -- e.g., one of the
best at his position for a long time -- that we usually use for the HAll.


Roger
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Lists: The Best Players In Baseeball
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 01:33:28 GMT

In article <4200370@hpcc01.corp.hp.com> boell@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Donald P Boell) writes:

>I'm sorry, but there is no way I'll give Thomas the Nod over Will the-thrill
>Clark.  At the end of their careers lets see who makes the HOF.  Will is the
>best 1b in the game.

Well, HOF is a little early to talk about, since an injury could easily
ruin either one of them.

But Will Clark versus Frank Thomas?  I'll give him the defensive nod.
Not that I know him to be better, but that seems to be the general
consensus, and I don't have any reason to doubt it in *this* case.

But offensively?  Don't be silly.  Thomas does *everything* better than
Clark.  He gets on base a *lot* more, and he has a bunch more power.  *And*
he's much younger.

The only thing Clark does better is steal bases, and I hardly think his
5 per year really negates Thomas's major batting advantage.  

Clark has *never* had a year as good as any of Frank Thomas's.  Ever.
So why in the world would we conclude that Clark is better than Thomas?

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Is it too early to start making predictions for 1993?
niepornt@phoenix.    | Probably, but that never stopped me before.
   princeton.edu     | ALE: Baltimore ALW: Chicago NLE: Montreal NLW: Atlanta
Baltimore Orioles 93 | AL MVP: Cal Ripken  AL Cy Young: Mike Mussina
From: spira@panix.com (Greg "Sarcasm Is A Way Of Life" Spira)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Alomar and Range Factor (was Re: Lists: The Best Players In Baseball)
Date: 8 Jan 93 20:02:15 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Boo!

In <1993Jan8.153940.21655@athena.mit.edu> cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:

>In article <1993Jan8.142208.5524@sni.ca> dave@snitor.sni.ca (Dave Till) writes:
>>Alomar's range factor is lower than it should be because the Jays pitching
>>staff gives up more fly balls than grounders.  Every Jay infielder had below
>>average range; every Jays outfielder had average range or better.  (This
>>includes Candy Maldonado, unless my memory is playing tricks on me.)

>a good example of why the RF is a silly statistic.

Well, unadjusted range factor over one year, yes.  But you can adjust range
factor in many ways to make it make much more sense.  And you can use over
a long period of years, and it will will present a reasonably accurate
rating of many fielders.

One year, unadjusted range factor is not very useful, and probably totally
useless for second basemen and shortstops. 

But if you have 4 years of data, you can probably reach some conclusions
with reasonable accuracy.  And if you adjust it in certain ways - only
count "plays made," and not "Ps+As," adjust for balls in play, adjust for
the type of pitching staff (left or right, ground or fly), you have a much
more useful stat.

And then if you adjust for actual chances to make plays, and do it properly
(DA, not ZR), you're even better off.  Yes, you still have the problem of
how the quality of the pitching staff (as opposed to the type) affects the
ability of the fielders to turn balls into outs, and also park factor problems,
but it does seem to give a fairly accurate representation of a fielder's
performance,              

And it is obviously far more accurate than traditional fielding measures
like fielding percentage, which are worse than useless.  And I'm a lot
more comfortable relying on them than the silly observations of
writers etc. who seem to feel, if I may borrow from Billy Crystal's 
"Fernando" for a moment, "that it is better to look good than to field
good."

Greg