HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lyle@chainsaw.ecn.purdue.edu (Lyle Youngblood)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: DH (Was "NL has more speed, less power than AL")
Date: 28 Jan 93 07:52:08 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1993Jan28.004102.3824@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> nlu@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu) writes:
>In article <C1J8LG.EFz@zoo.toronto.edu> rising@zoo.toronto.edu (Jim Rising) writes:
>
>>I think that is would be interesting to see what percentage
>>of folks in netland prefer DH vs not, cast in the light of
>>which league they follow more closely.  My guess is that AL
>>fans generally like the DH and NL ones generally don't.
>>But I'm too busy to keep track of the data.
>
>I like the DH rule not because I particularly like high-run games (I don't);
>rather, I like the potential that it gives the manager at playing with the
>bullpen.  The manager no longer is obligated to pinch hit for the reliever
>while down two runs; he could use his relievers in spots more often, and
>(if he's intelligent) more effectively.
>
    Personally, I like the way the DH rule works right now.  There are, IMO,
both positives and negatives about the use of a DH and I like the ability to
see BOTH styles.  Incidentally, I am a primarily NL watcher (Mets fan) who
loves to watch pitchers duels and great defense (maybe because I see so
little of it...grin). Anybody else agree that the present set-up with DH in
one league and not in the other is optimal?
                                             Lyle

                 
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball,soc.women,soc.men
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Women Sports Reporters
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:19:16 GMT

In article <1993Jan23.194401.6461@adobe.com> snichols@adobe.com (Sherri Nichols) writes:
)In article <1993Jan22.180857.16945@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
)>Unfortunately, though perhaps nobody on the *net* is arguing that
)>organizations shouldn't be able to ban all reporters from the locker rooms,
)>it appears to be the case that the Commission has decided that they shouldn't
)>be able to do so.
)
)Which Commission is that?
)
)Sherri Nichols
)snichols@adobe.com
)
)

The one who fined Wyche $30,000.  Dunno the official title.

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: snichols@adobe.com (Sherri Nichols)
Subject: Re: AVERAGE/GOOD values...
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 19:39:44 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.195744.1012@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> nlu@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu) writes:
>In article <1993Jan22.185938.8709@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> gspira@nyx.cs.du.edu (Greg Spira) writes:
>
>>Yes, but one question: Why doesn't Gillette use DA in the book?
>
>One possibility (a speculation on my part, which might or might not be way off
>base) is that since Project Scoresheet is a volunteer effort, Gillette might
>feel that it is unethical to use the data gathered there that is used to
>compute DA for his own material gain?  Just a thought.

Project Scoresheet is dead.  The last year that the data was collected as a
volunteer effort was 1990.  As part of the dissolution of the Project
(which owed Gillette, among others money), Gillette got commercial rights
to the Project data, so he's perfectly within his rights to use the data
for his own material gain.  David and I also have commercial rights to the
data, though we've not chosen to do anything to try and make money with the
data.  It does mean that I feel perfectly free to post anything from what I
do with the data here, without worry of legal issues.  

The last two years, the data has been collected by Gillette, who has paid
his scorekeepers some amount per game.  The data has been collected using
the same format as the Project data, and using the same software.  That
software was written by David (my husband) and Tom Tippett, known to some
of you as the author of PC Baseball, also known as the computer version of
Pursue the Pennant.  In exchange for a license to use that software,
Gillette grants Tom and David commercial licenses to the data he collects,
which is why I'm able to continue the DA stuff.

Sherri Nichols
snichols@adobe.com


Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: ecaxron@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Ron Graham)
Subject: Re: The Jesse & Marge Show
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date: 21 Jan 1993 10:47 EST  

In article <1jencsINNng3@transfer.stratus.com>, 
     jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com writes...

>In article <18JAN199311301403@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov>  
>ecaxron@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Ron Graham) writes:

>> That's funny.  I could have sworn that Schott made a few public apologies,
>> and a few private ones as well.  Oh - those don't count.  She's not   
>> a politician.

>Exactly.  But you seem to miss why this is an important distinction.

I agree there is a distinction here, but I disagree as to its importance.

>Jackson, as a politician, is responsible to the voters (who can
>impose sanctions in the form of not voting for him). In fact, the
>voters did punish Jackson for these remarks.

Which is, in fact, why Jackson is not a politician now.  He is a lobbyist.

>Schott is responsible to baseball, to some degree.  Her remarks
>hurt all of baseball (and thus effect all the owners). They
>are really the only ones who can punish her: she has not
>"voters" to not vote for her.  (Of course, fans could boycott
>the Reds, but that then hurts the whole team and organization,
>not just the bozo who should be reprimanded.)

Well, this is a good point.  All I can give in counterpoint is, if
Jackson is "forgiven" for previous indiscretions and allowed to retain
a certain amount of public influence, then if Schott follows essentially
the same path (namely, apologizing to anyone personally offended and to
fans in general, moving ahead with an affirmative action plan, and watching
what she says in the future), she should be treated by the public the
same way.  I find Political Correctness [tm] always looking for a scapegoat,
someone to beat up, and around here Schott has been beaten and beaten and
beaten.

RG

"How are you, honey?"  -  Marge Schott, to Jesse Jackson
From: sfh@po.CWRU.Edu (Steven F. Hubbard)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: schofield to the jays
Date: 28 Jan 1993 17:46:58 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: sfh@po.CWRU.Edu (Steven F. Hubbard)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, gajarsky@pilot.njin.net (Bob Gajarsky - Hobokenite) says:

>schofield can't even GET nosebleeds.  you'll get a guy who's a decent fielder
> who will hit 240 up in toronto, with a little power and no walks.  if
> you love that, that's fine.  
>

    Schofield walks around 50 or 60 times a year.  He is at least average in 
that department.

SfH
-- 
Steven F. Hubbard                ** "If people don't want to come to the 
Case Western Reserve University  **     ballpark, how are you gonna stop them? 
Department of Physics            **  
Cleveland, OH 44106              **                         -- Yogi
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: dave@snitor.sni.ca (Dave Till)
Subject: Re: Consider Whitaker when talking about good 2B...
Organization: Jays Fans Looking Forward To Spring Training, Inc.
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 16:11:34 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.032207.24317@athena.mit.edu> frisch1@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan Katz) writes:
>What do people out there think about Whitaker's chances for the HOF?
>
>And, while we're at it, how about Trammell?

I've always liked the idea of inducting Whitaker and Trammell into the HOF
together, and putting them on the same plaque.  (A larger-than-normal
plaque, of course, so as not to short-change them.)  That way, future
generations will remember them as we do:  as an inseparable team.

--Dave "memories are made of this" Till
From: grabiner@math.harvard.edu (David Grabiner)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Replacement value (was Re: Cecil signs)
Date: 26 Jan 93 20:16:46 GMT
Article-I.D.: boucher.GRABINER.93Jan26151807
Organization: /etc/organization
In-reply-to: genetic+@pitt.edu's message of 26 Jan 93 13:56:54 GMT

In article <2531@blue.cis.pitt.edu>, David M. Tate writes:

> So, for example, the answer to "How can you say that a 12-12 pitcher with
> 200 innings is 'worthless'" is (a) that's an above-average performance, I'll
> bet; (b) not 'worthless' but 'win-neutral', which is different, and (c)
> because the ability to pitch lots of innings has prospective value (as a 
> hedge against having to use a worse pitcher), but no *retrospective* value
> beyond the quality of those innings.

> Is this more clear?

The point is clear, but which measure you should use depends on what you
are trying to measure.  If your question is, "How much better or worse
would the team be without this player?" you want replacement value.  If
you want to see "Where did this team's wins and losses come from?" you
may want to compare to average value.

For example, suppose you are making out a Cy Young ballot, and you want
to compare two pitchers, in a league with an ERA of 4.00:

    G   W   L  IP   R  ER  ERA
A  30  18   7 210  77  70 3.00  
B  36  20  10 255 101  92 3.25

Who gets your vote?  I would compute the difference,

D   6   2   3  45  24  22 4.40

That's below average, so if you claim that it has negative value, then A
should get your vote, because B hurt his team in those six extra starts.

But it's above replacement level.  When A missed six starts, the pitcher
who replaced him probably wasn't a league-average pitcher, since the
team's #2, #3, #4, and probably #5 starters already started on rotation.
I'd rather have B on my team than A because of this difference; I'm more
likely to win games that way.  So I will vote for B as Cy Young winner.


--
David Grabiner, grabiner@zariski.harvard.edu
"We are sorry, but the number you have dialed is imaginary."
"Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and try again."
Disclaimer: I speak for no one and no one speaks for me.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: griffin@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (Sean McGerty)
Subject: Starting lineups anyone?
Summary: request for starting lineups for this year...
Organization: Sydney University Computing Service, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 21:02:00 GMT

Can anyone supply the staffs for each team as they are at present?
 
Thanks,
 
Sean

-- 
  / _/\  +--------------------------------------------------------------------
 /     \ | DrBob.                      
/  _   | |
\_/ \__/ | griffin@extro.uc.su.OZ.AU
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball,soc.women,soc.men
From: tloughin@IASTATE.EDU (Thomas M Loughin)
Subject: Re: Racism in Baseball
Reply-To: tloughin@IASTATE.EDU (Thomas M Loughin)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 16:22:08 GMT

In article <C1KKI1.9oz@zoo.toronto.edu>, rising@zoo.toronto.edu (Jim Rising)
writes:
> A couple of years ago (I don't have recent information)
> average salaries of black major league players were higher
> than those of whites.  I took this to be an indication 
> that general managers were more likely to carry a marginal
> white player than a marginal black one, but there could
> be other explanations (e.g. maybe outfielders get paid
> more on average than pitchers...).

This touches on the obvious problem with trying to glean any meaning out 
of such coarse summary figures as average salaries for *all* black players 
vs. *all* white players.  What somebody intends as a show of lack of 
racism may, as Jim points out, really be an indication of any number of 
effects that are hidden by the coarseness of the summary.  The true 
causes of this difference may or may not be related to racism, may be a 
mixture of racist and non-racist contributions, or may be related almost 
exclusively to chance.  

Averages are a bad thing to use in such a discussion, anyway.  They are 
too sensitive to a few huge values.  If the discussion focuses on the 
"typical" players, then a median would be a more appropriate measure.  

Of course, if it turns out that the current group of black players  
contains, on the whole, "better" players than the current group of white 
players (whatever we use to measure "better"), and if player salaries 
indicate that blacks are, indeed, being paid more than whites (in some 
appropriate measure), then it is still possible that racism is in action 
if we find, for example, that the overall pay scales *per unit quality* 
differ for the two groups.  

In summary, there are so many effects and subtleties involved in studying 
the issue, that I'm not sure that I'd believe ANYONE'S "analysis" of the 
subject (unless they can prove to me that they have no stake in the matter 
and that they have a firm understanding of these statistical issues). 

You have to be VERY careful not to attribute too much meaning to these 
things.  It's easier to lie with statistics than to tell the truth with 
them.  

-Tom.
From: fierkelab@bchm.biochem.duke.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Change the game?
Date: 27 Jan 93 19:22:50 GMT
Organization: Biochemistry


>In article <1k3k7sINNr7l@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bz832@cleveland.Freenet.Edu
(Wesley R. Kemmerlin) states:
>>I have a solution to this problem:
>>
>>The pitcher has to bat, but there can be a DH for another position
>>player.
>>
>>This solution would keep the strategy in the game while adding more
>>offense. What do all of you pro and anti DHers think about this
>>solution?

Well, in high school baseball, the DH can bat for any one fielder, not just the
pitcher.  Since the pitcher is quite often a high school team's best player,
the rule makes sense at this level.

However, in professional baseball, the ability to pitch outweighs any other
considerations (hitting, fielding, ability to chew tobacco) in selecting a
pitcher.  Thus the plethora of sub - .100 BA pitchers and the practice of using
a DH exclusively for the pitcher.  I confess, I don't know if the AL rules
would allow you to use a DH for a player other than the pitcher, but there
would be darned few times when a manager would want to do this.

(Actually, if Cleveland used Lilliquist as a starter, they might have
benefitted by letting him bat and DH'ing for Fermin!)

Eric Roush			Deck us all with Boston Charlie
fierkelab@			Walla Walla Wash and Kalamazoo!
bchm.biochem.duke.edu	Nora's freezin' on the Trolley,
				Swaller Dollar Cauliflower Alla-ga-Roo!

				Walt Kelley
From: genzuk@mizar.usc.edu (Michael Genzuk)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: The Straw Man
Date: 26 Jan 1993 11:31:55 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: mizar.usc.edu

The last I heard was that Strawberry would be ready to go 100% on
opening day.  The Dodgers held an open workout at Dodger Stadium
and friends of mine who went commented on how strong and fit he 
looked.  The line coming from both he and Eric Davis is that they
have something to prove to LA fans and to Dodger management.  If
they are both capable of staying in the line-up, who knows.  Maybe
that would compensate for the Dodgers lack of a bullpen or left 
handed pitchers.

Keep the faith Dodger Blue...

Michael from USC
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball,soc.women,soc.men
From: snichols@adobe.com (Sherri Nichols)
Subject: Re: Women Sports Reporters
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 21:36:09 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.122040.7804@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>snichols@adobe.com (Sherri Nichols) writes...
>>In article <1992Dec23.024452.24795@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com
>>(aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
>
>>>I assume that men reporters are also entitled to interview women
>>>athletes while they are bathing, although I've never heard of one man
>>>even attempting to do so.
>
>>In every sport where women participate, men and women reporters have equal
>>access to the players.
>
>And I repeat his question... (unless he has already done so)  Do you
>know of an actual case where a male reporter even attempting to
>interview women athletes while they were bathing?  If so, what was
>the outcome?

And I repeat that this isn't the issue.  The issue is, do men and women
reporters have equal access?  How an organization chooses to provide that
equal access is up to the organization.  I suggest that if you're concerned
about how particular organizations choose to provide equal access, that you
take it up with them.  However, I will also add that if your goal is simply
to remove women reporters from locker rooms, without removing men
reporters, you're unlikely to succeed.  

I've not argued, and I've not heard anybody on this net argue, that
organizations shouldn't be able to bar *all* reporters from locker rooms.
I do argue that organizations can't selectively ban reporters of a
particular gender.

>>>and then, when the women pursued them with threats of accusing them of
>>>rape, paid her a lump sum of something like $30,000 to NOT go forward
>>>with the allegations.  Then, the woman demanded more money.  The
>>>players refused to give her more money.  So, she went forwarded with
>>>the rape allegations.  I don't know the outcome of the trial, though.
>>>Despite Wyche's "fathering," this group of "his" players were stupid
>>>enough to open themselves up to such allegations.
>
>>Perhaps if Wyche had dealt with the real problem of the players and their
>>attitudes toward women, instead of tacitly supporting those attitudes, his
>>"fathering" would have been more effective.
>
>Methinks that your bias is screaming off the page.  You seem to imply that
>these men are already guilty.

Speaking of bias....

I imply nothing of the sort.  Mr. Vidiguris was making the claim that Wyche
was trying to protect his players in banning the women reporters from the
locker room, and offering evidence of the need for the protection with the
story about the rape accusations.  I pointed out that perhaps had Wyche
actually dealt with the problems the players faced, rather than trying to
shelter them, he might have been more effective in protecting them.  

I made no judgemetns about the guilt or innocence of those men.  

Sherri Nichols
snichols@adobe.com
From: tannerg@carson.u.washington.edu (Glenn Tanner)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Sandberg (was Re: Ty Griffen)
Date: 23 Jan 1993 07:13:00 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
NNTP-Posting-Host: carson.u.washington.edu


>In article <1993Jan22.122112.13976@bsu-ucs> 00bjgood@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu writes:
>>In article <2272@blue.cis.pitt.edu>, genetic+@pitt.edu (Dr. Dave) writes:
>>> Thus spake 00bjgood@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu:
>>>>There was talk of moving Ryno back to third when Griffen got
>>>>to the majors. He was thought to be THAT good. Well anyway Ryno became more
>>>>than just a former MVP, he bacame the premier second baseman in history 
>>> 
>>> Do they really believe this in Chicago?  Talk about parochialism...
>>> 
>>So who do you think was better? 
>
>Joe Morgan.
>
>>And please don't say Joe Morgan. 
>
>Oops.
>
>>Maybe if you go back before 1950 you could make a case. 
>
>Speaking of which, Charlie Gehringer died today.  He was about Sandberg's
>caliber.
>
>You can definitely make a case for Hornsby being much better.

I was hoping someone would mention Hornsby, because I love Bill James's 
argument against him.  Hornsby put up some big offensive numbers through
1929, but in his later years he was very well-traveled.  At the end of the 
'26 season, the Cardinals traded him to the Giants.  He put up a 1.017 OPS,
but the next year he was playing for Boston.  He posted a 1.100 OPS in his 
one year there, and in 1929 was playing for Chicago.  James's argument      
against rating him solely on his stats is that "Too many people had him and
just couldn't wait to get rid of him...They didn't trade him because they 
wanted Frankie Frisch or they wanted Shanty Hogan or they had to have Bruce
Cunningham and $200K.  They traded Hornsby because they wanted to get rid of
Rogers Hornsby.  The teams that traded Hornsby did not get any worse, and the
teams that get him didn't get any better."

Comments?

GT

>-- 
>ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
>standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
>the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
From: dxf12@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas Fowler)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: All-time Mets spring training report (ATAS)
Date: 27 Jan 1993 03:46:17 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: dxf12@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas Fowler)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc5.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, prm@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (paul.r.mount) says:

>
>Arky Vaughn as the best Mets all time shortstop? Wilbur Coooper
>as one of the best pitchers? come On!

     Som4etimes I wonder why I've bothered allowing trades; the Mets needed
a shortstop badly, that's why they sent some pitchers to the Bucs.  Would
you rather have Bud Harrelson?!
     As for the free time, I have my hands full, but I did this stuff over 3
years and all I have to do now is post. (Well, except the season has about
a week left to go; then there are playoffs...)
 :-)
-- 
Doug Fowler: dxf12@po.CWRU.edu  : Me, age 4 & now: "Mommys and Daddys & other
    Ever wonder if, after Casey : relatives have to give lots of hugs & love
missed the 3rd strike in the poem: & support, 'cause Heaven is just a great
he ran to first and made it?     : big hug that lasts forever and ever!!!"
From: 00bjgood@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Sandberg (was Re: Ty Griffen)
Date: 22 Jan 93 17:21:12 GMT
Organization: Ball State University, Muncie, In - Univ. Computing Svc's

In article <2272@blue.cis.pitt.edu>, genetic+@pitt.edu (Dr. Dave) writes:
> Thus spake 00bjgood@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu:
> 
>>There was talk of moving Ryno back to third when Griffen got
>>to the majors. He was thought to be THAT good. Well anyway Ryno became more
>>than just a former MVP, he bacame the premier second baseman in history 
> 
> Hee hee.
> 
> Do they really believe this in Chicago?  Talk about parochialism...
> 
So who do you think was better? And please don't say Joe Morgan. Maybe if you
go back before 1950 you could make a case. Although I admit I should have said,
one of the premier second basemen in history.