HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gerry@macadam.mpce.mq.edu.au (Gerry Myerson)
Subject: HoF vote --- some suggestions
Originator: gerry@macadam.mpce.mq.edu.au
Organization: School of MPCE, Macquarie University, Australia.
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 06:00:37 GMT

Some non-partisan suggestions to voters; 

1. No one from the 1800s is in our HoF, or was even close to getting in 
last time (not counting Cy Young, half of whose career lies in this century, 
and Honus Wagner, whose career was mostly in this century). I think it's 
safe to say that the best players of 1876--1900 were as good as the best 
players since, and I suggest you reserve one or two spots for them on your 
ballot. 

I know they played a long time ago, but, when you think about it, so did 
Joe DiMaggio; I'll wager there's not more than two or three of you that 
voted for him last time that ever saw him play in anything but an 
Oldtimers' Day game or a Mr Coffee commercial. And Joe D is only yesterday 
compared to Lou Gehrig, Walter Johnson, and Wagner, to name a few of our 
inductees. 

And I know the game has changed a lot since 1900, and it's hard to get a 
handle on the significance of statistics from that era. But some things 
don't change, like the importance of getting on base and hitting with 
power. You can work out who the outstanding players of the era were, and, 
if you accept the hypothesis that the best players then were, on the whole, 
as good as the best players of any other era, well, you've got to vote in 
some of these pioneers. 

2. Similar comments apply to the Negro Leagues. None of their stars is 
close to induction in the r.s.b. HoF. Considering that within ten years of 
the desegregation of Major League Baseball we had Mays, Aaron, Banks, Frank 
Robinson, Campanella, etc. --- certainly a match for Mantle, Williams, 
Musial, Berra, etc. --- it seems safe to say that the best players of the 
Negro Leagues were on a par with their contemporaries in the white game. So, 
why not save them a couple of places on your ballot? 

3. No umpire is anywhere near induction. The reasoning above does not 
apply here, I just thought I'd give you one more thing to think about. 

Gerry Myerson
From: cs3ea3ai@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Michigan #1)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Phillies #1
Date: 23 Nov 92 04:50:43 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Department of Computer Science, McMaster University

>2B: Mariano Duncan - this guy is a flat out hustler - not only was he
>one opf the league leaders in hits for most of the season, but he also
>was one of the leaders, in doubles.  He can be counted on to produce at
>least a .265-.275 average with 10-15 hr's, 70 rbi's and about 20-30
>sb's.  And this constant production hides his sometimes suspect defense.

I'm not quite sure you're talking about Marinao Duncan.  Besides last year,
he's never hit over 25 doubles.  Last year he walked 17 times while striking
out 108.  Ouch!  His career highs in homers are 12 in '91, and 10 in '90.
His career high in RBI's is 55.  The career obp is .296.  Hmm, sounds like
Alfredo Griffin at second base.

>1B: Kruker -  last year was no fluke people - he can hit, he can play D,
>and when his knees and back hurt, stick in Rickey Jordan who as a backup
>will produce about 40-50 rbi's.

How can someone not like John "Weeble Wobble but he don't fall down" Kruk?
His off-season training program is reminiscent of Babe Ruth.  I agree with you
on this one, except look for more like 90 RBI's with a healty Dykstra.

>C:  Daulton - two years ago the Phils gave him an outrageous 3 million a
>year for 1/2 of a good year.  But last year Lee Thomas showed that he
>knew what he was doing.  Look for about 20-25 dingers accompanied by at
>least 80 rbi's next year.

Will the real Darren Daulton please stand up?  The bad points include a career
average of .233, two good years out of 9 in the majors, and a lot of bad ones.
On the good side he had career highs in nearly all offensive categories.  The
one concern is that he turns 31 next year, and players, on average decline
after the peak of 27.

>LF: Wes Chamberlain - You know things are good when you have the ability
>to bat who is capable of hitting 25 hr's and knocking in 70 runs a year,
>and stealing a few bases along the way.  Although his D may not be the
>greatest, his offense takes care of that.

I note that the key word here is capable.  Chamberlain's been capable for a
long time.
From: krussell@stat.tamu.edu (Kathy Russell)
Subject: Re: Houston Protected List
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 00:15:00 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.200154.24107@cs.tulane.edu> eebonar@sn01.sncc.lsu.edu writes:
>	Anthony is a good looking prospect.  But even after his '92 season
>he really hasn't shown much at the major league level.  He hit well but not
>great in the minors.  Additionaly, he has only been so-so at drawing walks.
>Sure he has great power.  But that is about all he has.  I expect that he
>can put up .250/.310/.440 numbers if he has a pretty decent year.  That doesn't
>cut it as the right fielder of a contending team (unless everything else is
>rock solid).  To me he looks a lot like a left handed version of Pete Incaviglia.

I watched at least 120 Astros games last year and it was my
observation that Eric Anthony is a FAR FAR better hitter in clutch
situations than Pete Incaviglia.  As evidenced by the fact that
Incaviglia had 44 RBI in 349 at bats last year while Anthony had 80
RBI (including 2 grand slams) in 440 at bats.  Even though
Incaviglia's batting average was higher (.266 versus .239), he never
seemed to perform well in high pressure situations.

Kathy Russell
Houston Astros World Champs 1993!!!!!!!!
krussell@stat.tamu.edu


Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: spira@panix.com (Greg "Sarcasm Is A Way Of Life" Spira)
Subject: Expansion Draft Possibilities
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 06:40:07 GMT
Organization: Boo! 

I recently went through all AAA and AA non-protected players to see
who might be a good pick for the expansion teams.  I focused on
offensive players, and found a few who haven't really been discussed
here.

I suspect the first one of these players to be taken will be from the
Blue Jays - either Juan Delarosa or Nigel Wilson.  Wilson is more of
a sure thing, but I like Delarosa better.  Wilson is Joe Carter with
a bit more power, I think, while Delarosa has more on-base ability and
is more valuable defensively.  Rumor has Wilson going early.

The Rangers have a whole bunch of promising AA and AAA prospects.
Most likely to be taken is Rob Maurer, a patient first baseman with
both good OBP and good SLG.  I also like Jeff Frye, a second baseman
with good offensive skills, and Jon Shave, the only shortstop I found
with any real offensive skills.  Rusty Greur, an outfielder with good
OBP, might be a worthwhile 2nd or 3rd round selection.

I was also impressed with what the Indians don't have protected.  Ken
Ramos is pretty old for a prospect, but he could post a .375 OBP in the
majors and his work ethic is reportedly excellent.  Tracy Sanders is a
young outfielder who has some power potential and a decent OBP.  The
Indiand also have a catcher named Jesse Levis who might be worth a look.

A couple of third baseman who are possibilities can be found unprotected
in the Brewers and Mariners' systems.  Jim Tatum of the Brewers is more
likely to be taken, but Frank Bolick, who's been completely ignored, is
worth a look too.

Todd Pratt, the Phillies' backup catcher, is a likely pick-up in  the
first round.  He hasn't been given the chance, but he looks like he
could be an excellent offensive catcher and a decent defensive one.

The Twins have 3 players who are worth a look.  Rex Delanuez and Terry
Jorgenson are both decent outfielders, and Paul Russo looks like he
could be a decent third baseman in the long run.

The Yankees are convinced that Hensley Muelens will be picked; I'm not
convinced that Muelens will ever rlly be any good.                    

Phil Clark and Jody Hurst of the Tigers, both replacement level outfielders,
are the players the Tigers are most likely to lose from the group I looked
at.

The Royals Jeff Conine is a very likely first round pick-up.  If he can
stay healthy, he's probably one of the best young hitters available in
the draft.

Bret Barberie might seem likely to be taken from the Expos, but I hear
that the Expos have been working to convince the expansion teams not to
take Barberie.  That was evidently what the Rockies-Expos trade of last
week was about.  Actually, I wouldn't be surprised to see Ivan Calderon
as one of the few veterans that are picked up early.

Anyway, I thought I'd throw out some names.  For those who haven't heard,
the Rockies today signed Andres Galarraga, and Glenn Braggs and Mel Hall
signed contracts with Japanese teams.

Greg 
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: tom@ssd.csd.harris.com (Tom Horsley)
Subject: Whats the stupidest rule in baseball?
Organization: Harris Computer Systems Division
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 19:40:38 GMT

While waiting for the season to start, here's a nice time wasting topic for
discussion:

   What is the stupidest rule or procedure in baseball?

The best I can come up with is the balk rule which says a balk occurs when
the pitcher attempts to decieve the runner. I mean *really*, if the runner
was picked off, he must have been decieved, so all pickoffs should
automatically be balks :-).

The official definition of the strike zone might be another good candidate.

By the way, neither one of these comes close to my candidate for the
stupidest football procedure which occurs in the following sequence of
events:

   * At the end of a play, the players and refs toss the bal around for a
     while, and eventually one ref puts the ball down at some randomly
     selected spot more of less in line with the place where the ball was
     "downed".

   * Meanwhile, some bozo over on the sidelines moves the chain (let's say
     the play was a first down) to some spot more or less about where it
     thinks it ought to go kind of in line with the ball (sort-of).

   * On the next play, they decide to measure to see if it is another first
     down, so the bring the chain out, put one end down just about anywhere
     they feel like somewhere in the near vicinity of where the ball
     started.

   * Then they get down at the other end of the chain with a micrometer to
     see if it is a first down (even though there is no chance the end of
     the chain is placed with a margin of error any less than about one or
     two feet).

As near as I can tell, nothing in baseball or any other sport approaches the
monumental stupidity of this football rule, but I welcome proposals if you
think there is a baseball rule this stupid...
--
======================================================================
domain: tahorsley@csd.harris.com       USMail: Tom Horsley
  uucp: ...!uunet!hcx1!tahorsley               511 Kingbird Circle
                                               Delray Beach, FL  33444
+==== Censorship is the only form of Obscenity ======================+
|     (Wait, I forgot government tobacco subsidies...)               |
+====================================================================+
Date: Sunday, 15 Nov 1992 16:57:32 EST
From: <RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: The New Yuck Mets and the Fernandez deal
 <kf0Mqfm00iUyI7oqoQ@andrew.cmu.edu> <1992Nov15.014509.23297@Princeton.EDU>
 <1992Nov15.145546.23687@athena.mit.edu>
 <kbanaian.9.0@bernard.pitzer.claremont.edu>

regarding fernandez... "well, until this year he WAS a good baserunner.
at least he wasn't steve sax," or some such.

huh? sax is a good base stealer.  i don't know about his base running
other than stealing, but it never struck me as bad.

bob vesterman.

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: hbrooks@uiatma.atmos.uiuc.edu (Harold_Brooks)
Subject: Re: What Happened To...
Organization: NSSL
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 16:47:35 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.154708.28117@cs.tulane.edu> eebonar@sn01.sncc.lsu.edu writes:
>
>	While looking over the protected lists I'vnoticed a lot of names
>missing from the lists of 'prospects' that were being talked about this 
>spring.  Some of them never were real prospects but others really seemed to
>have a shot.  Yet they aren't protected.  Since I didn't seem to save final
>minor league stats (I thought I had but when I checked I had nothing.  I
>need a new filing system :>) I'm interested in any comments that people have
>on the probable future careers of the following players.
>
[deletions]
>Fajardo (tex)

Although he's had some injury problems, he certainly looked good at
the end of the year here.  He pitched two outstanding games at OKC.
He made a lot of very good pitches when he needed to.  I'd certainly
be willing to take a chance on his future as a member of a team I
was GM of.

>Maurer (tex)

One of my pet favorites.  Probably the best first baseman in the Rangers
organization at any level, including the majors.  Hits for a decent average,
good power, walks a lot.  Had a horrible month of May (I think he played
through an injury, but no one wanted to talk about it) and then hit ~.320
the rest of the '92 season.  While venerable All-Sports Stadium is a good
offensive ballpark, it helps right-handed hitters a lot more than left-
handed hitters.  (Although it's symmetrical, the climatological wind blows
out to left a lot more often than to right.)  
Appears to be very good on defense.  

Drawbacks-not very fast and the Rangers have already wasted at least one
year of his career by not having him up this year.  He's now 25 years old.

He's not going to be a Hall of Famer, but he should provide someone with
several solid years at first base.  Unfortunately for Texas, it appears
they don't appreciate him.

There was a blurb in the OKC paper this morning about the effects of the 
draft on the '89ers.  In it, an unnamed 'source in the Ranger organization'
said that they expected to lose Jeff Huson, Monty Fariss, and Rob Maurer.
I don't know if this means they plan to protect the pitchers (Fajardo,
Chiamparino, and Bohanon) after the first round or what.  He indicated
that they thought they might sneak Reimer through (or perhaps he'll be
the fourth protectee at the end of round one.)

Harold
-- 
Harold Brooks                    hbrooks@uiatma.atmos.uiuc.edu
National Severe Storms Laboratory (Norman, OK)
"I used to work for a brewery, too, but I didn't drink on the job."
-P. Bavasi on Dal Maxvill's view that Florida can win the NL East in '93
From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Mitchell for Charlton and other trades.
Date: 19 Nov 92 18:03:01 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Nov19.180301.19038
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <9865@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> traven+@pitt.edu (Neal Traven) writes:
>If I'm not mistaken, Mitchell wears a beard/goatee/scraggle/something.  I
>wonder how he'll react to the Reds' antediluvean 'no facial hair' policy.

Now that they have Mitchell, the Reds may also need to install
a "no barfing in the dugout" policy.



-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: arrow@netcom.com (Les Arrow)
Subject: Re: Mitchell for Charlton and other trades.
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 10:45:41 GMT

In article <1ed1pcINNhvp@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> srobson@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Seth I Robson) writes:
>
>Well, the Seattle Mariners and Cinninnati Reds have gotten together on a
>rather intriguing swap: Kevin Mitchell comes back to the NL West in
>exchange for Norm Charlton.  It looks like Cincinnati is not only willing
>to wager that Dibble's 1992 troubles are past him, but also that Mitchell's
>1991-2 troubles are past _him_.  At the very least, that leaves Reggie 
>Sanders and Roberto Kelly to squabble over who plays right field... :-)
>Did the Reds send anybody else to Seattle with Charlton?
>
>I wouldn't call a clear winner in this trade--yet.  The Mariners got a
>solid relief pitcher, and the Reds got a big wild card.  Time is almost
>out for Kevin Mitchell, but I wouldn't 100% count him out from having a 1990-
>like season again sometime, assuming he stays somewhat healthy and out of
>any off-field shenanigans.
>
>--

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?

Of course, I'm assuming that the destruction of their starters last year is
not real and that they should bounce back, namely Holman and Hanson. With
Fleming and Johnson in the top four as well, that's not too bad a starting 
staff.

With starters on the field like Griffey Jr, Tino and Edgar Martinez,
Buhner, and Boone, they could have enough offense to make something of it.
Personally, I look forward to watching this team next year.

--Les
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: news@bmerh85.bnr.ca (Usenet News)
Subject: JAYS Will Acquire Jim Abbott	
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 17:45:38 GMT


According to Marty York, Sports Editor/Columnist for the
Globe and Mail, the BLUE JAYS have agreed to terms with
the ANGELS on a deal that will send Todd Stottlemyre, Randy
Knorr and Domingo Martinez to California in return for
Jim Abbott.  The deal will be announced in the next few
days. If this is true, it explains why the JAYS left 
highly touted prospects like Nigel Wilson (will likely
go #2 in the draft today) and Juan de la Rosa unpropected in
favor of Knorr and Martinez.  
 
Folks this deal is one that you can bank on - not like this
Borders, Lee for Alomar, Baerga nonsense I've been reading
about.
 

Ravi
From: rbd@flash.ece.uc.edu (Bobby Davis)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Rockies Coup and other ramblings
Date: 20 Nov 92 20:27:31 GMT
Organization: University of Cincinnati, ECE Dept

brian@sdg.dra.com writes:
>Colorado folks beware:  the 'Cat' is slow and injury-prone.  Expect him
>to be on the DL for 50-60 games.

If the Cat could somehow be injured for all 162 games, this would really
help the Rockies.  They might use someone who can actually play instead.

Bob Davis		rbd@thor.ece.uc.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: ron@osf.org (Ron Birnbaum)
Subject: Re: Keith Mitchell ???
Organization: Open Software Foundation
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 15:56:30 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.192059.26358@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, dansmith@mcopn2.dseg.ti.com (Dan Smith) writes:
|> 
|> How could the expansion teams pass on Keith Mitchell. As an avid Braves fan,
|> he looked great last year (.318 avg on pennant contender) and has good minor
|> league credentials.

  How do you know he's an avid Braves fan?

;-)


|> Braves look real good to repeat as NL champs. Should be interesting '93 season!

  Yeah - they'll certainly be in contention again! And also in '94, '95, etc. 

-Ron
From: RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Eck Wins MVP in Horrible Voting
Date: 23 Nov 92 19:16:16 GMT
 <22NOV199220212782@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu> <1992Nov23.014808.17834@Princeton.EDU>
 <23NOV199213035032@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu>
Distribution: na

"with the talent and atmosphere in oakland in '92, i could easily see
them winning without rickey, his 17 extra runs produced and all."

                                  -some doctor guy

maybe.  i didn't follow the a's that closely, so, maybe.  i doubt it, but
maybe.

however, regardless of whether they could have won without rickey,
does that somehow diminish rickey's value? no.

also, regardless of whether they could have won without rickey,
would it have been easier, or even as easy, to do so? no.

finally, regardless of whether they could have won without rickey,
are there any atheletics whose loss would have hurt the team more
than the loss of rickey? yeah, probably mcgwire, this year.  some
people would say the eck, but i sincerely doubt it.  but other than
those two, no one comes close.  and if you consider the past few
years instead of last year, rickey stands alone.

in short, this "they could've won without rickey" is meaningless.
the 1927 yankees could've won without babe ruth.

bob vesterman.
From: tedward@cs.cornell.edu (Edward [Ted] Fischer)
Subject: Red Sox in 1993
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 23:38:28 GMT


So what do the Red Sox look like right now?  They didn't lose any
talent in the first round (thanks to the Rockies' idiotic decision to
relieve the Sox of Jody Reed), but Eric Wedge walked in the *second*
round of the draft.  No matter.  What is done is done.  I may become
an Orioles fan over this one, but...

C		Pena (Marzano)
1B		Vaughn
2B		Naehring
SS		Valentin
3B		Cooper
LF		Greenwell
CF		Burks (Zupcic)
RF		Plantier
DH		????????
(Zupcic and Marzano will be the primary backups for Pena and Burks if
injured or resting.)

The above eight *will* all be in the lineup on a regular basis.  The
last spot goes to Quintana, if healthy.  If not, the Sox may sign
Brunansky or the dreaded Hatcher.  Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing
Blosser in that spot, but the brass will probably be conservative.

If the Sox *do* sign Brunansky, I hope to see Greenwell traded for a
dozen raisin bagels and a pound of cream cheese.  The Sox have an
excess of outfielders, even if Burks can't play.  (Aside from Blosser,
McNeely is still with the team and should be along soon.)

The Sox are also rumored to be seriously considering Mark McGwire.

Starting rotation:
Clemens, Viola, Darwin, Dopson, Gardiner

Or that's my bet.  Taylor and Hesketh will start the season in the pen.

Closers:
Harris, Ryan, and Quantrill.

I'm not thrilled.  Neither will be successful.  I hope I'm wrong, but...

The winter meetings will be disappointing if Greenwell isn't moved.  I
would *like* one or two more young arms in the system, but am not
dreadfully displeased with the current talent (Gardiner, Minchey,
Taylor, Riley, Sele, and Rodriguez.)  McGwire would be a nice addition.
Brunansky would be tolerable.  If Hatcher or Winningham is signed, I
will never again root for the Red Sox.

-Valentine
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: arrow@netcom.com (Les Arrow)
Subject: Re: Post-Draft Thoughts (was:Reaction to Rockies Draft)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 10:30:40 GMT

Add my agreement to the terrible draft job of the Colorado Rockies. In my
opinion, there were two ways to go: draft for the future or draft some of
the highpriced free agent to go for it now or so you can trade for the 
future.

What did the Colorado Rockies do? They drafted for last place for years to
come.

--Les
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: rdetweil@boi.hp.com (Richard Detweiler)
Subject: Re: Worrell & Smith
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 19:38:30 GMT
Organization: Hewlett Packard - Boise Printer Division

In article <1992Nov20.191528.9060@wuecl.wustl.edu> jdd@wheezer.wustl.edu (John DeHart) writes:
>
>Basically, Worrell has stated point blank that he wants to be THE closer
>for some team. My personal belief is that the Cards should get what they
>can for Smith now and sign Worrell. Perhaps that should be done in the
>opposite order or they would probably end up losing both of them.
>I think Smith is almost at the end, he was showing signs of some potential
>nagging problems. Worrell looked promising coming back from his injuries.
>But then maybe they should dump both and go after Reardon ;-).
>
>John DeHart
>jdd@arl.wustl.edu
>Washington University, St. Louis Mo.


SSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!  Not so damn loud!  Dal might here you...

:-):-)