HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hymowitz@whatever.cs.jhu.edu (Hymie!)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Real-life rulebook trivia
Date: 15 Sep 92 15:34:24 GMT
Organization: Creative Sensualities dept, Jacquie's House of Underwear

lbr@holos0.uucp (Len Reed) writes:
>In article <GRABINER.92Sep13171726@zariski.harvard.edu> grabiner@math.harvard.edu (David Grabiner) writes:
>>
>>Answer...
>>A runner forced to return while the ball is in play must touch all bases
>          ^^^^^^
>>in reverse order; thus, he is required to touch second.  Since he left
>                               ^^^^^^^^
>>second base before the catch, he is out when the shortstop tags the
>>base; the third baseman's tag is irrelevant.

>Gee, I sure doubt this.  I score this 8-4-6-5.
and that would be incorrect.

>I see nothing in the rulebook that would allow an appeal at second base
>on this play (presuming that the runner hadn't missed the base as he
>rounded it).
it's not an appeal play.  you don't appeal to the second base umpire.
you step on second before the runner gets there, and the runner is out.

>I think you have made the common mistake of confusing a force out with
>an appeal play.  You say the runner is "forced to return", but in fact,
>he is not "forced" as in "force-play."  He is forced only in the generic
>sense of "forced" meaning "required."    This distinction is important here.

yes - he's not forced from first, he's forced /back/ to first.

>The defense may appeal at first base to have him called out if
>he doesn't return to first base, but this is an appeal play, not a force
>out.
you're mixing up two different plays.

if the runner was going to /keep/ third, then it's an appeal play at
first (or second) for leaving the bag before the ball was caught.
but simply returning to the bag youshould not have left inthe first
place is not an appeal play.  it's a force play.

and thus is the runner forced at second by the shortstop's tag.

--hymie
hymowitz@cs.jhu.edu                                         hymie@jhuvms.bitnet
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Walking in space, we find the purpose of feet.
The beauty of life you can no longer hide.
Our eyes are open, our eyes are open.                            --Ragni & Rado
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: genetic+@pitt.edu (Dr. Dave)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: <None>
Date: 14 Sep 92 18:54:53 GMT
Organization: Department of Industrial Engineering

Thus spake szs@world.std.com (Stephen Z Stein):

>I am surprised by how *bad* the sac fly is when there's none out. 
>Not only is it not as good as a walk, it actually *costs* expected
>runs.  

Part of this is due to the league-wide boost to batting stats with men
on base.  With runners on base, pitchers throw from the stretch, and 
most of them are less effective from the stretch than from the windup.
In addition, fielders are more likely to do dumb things like throw the
ball away when there are men on base.  

I remember a couple of years ago when Sherri Nichols pointed out that
there is a sense in which home runs are rally-killers, in that they get
all the runners home, but leave in a situation from which is very difficult
to sustain the run-scoring process that's going on, whereas playing first-
and-third for a run of singles seems to have more continuity.  [NB: nobody,
especially not Sherri, was expressing a preference for singles over HR in
*any* situation.]

In the same way, though, sac flies and RBI grounders that leave the bases
empty put the following hitters in an almost impossible situation: score
runs from scratch with less than 3 outs to work with.  


-- 
      David M. Tate      | From my dugout sleep I fell into the Game
 dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu | And I crouched in the circle while my insides froze
 Randall 'Chico' Jarrell | One out from death, one hit from dreamt-of glory
"Death of a Pinch Hitter"| I woke to 'Strike One!' and the nightmare sliders...
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: rstimets@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (robert and stimets)
Subject: Atlanta, Cinci still trying to maintain interest
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 18:54:05 GMT


Well, there's two ways one can look at what is happening in the NL West
these days:

   1)  Cincinnati is doing their damnest to end the race and think about next year
   2)  Atlanta is doing their damnest to keep the race close (more home game
       sales)

Actually, when the Braves were flying high just two weeks ago they had opened 
a 7 game lead and seemed to be running away with the title (did I just mix
a metaphor or two?)  Cinci had seemed to be giving up, and still haven't
changed that apparent lack of wherewithal. All Atlanta needed to do was to 
win a few more games to ice the contention.  But no!  They decided to go in
a slump of their own.  They lost several while the Reds were able to beat up on
Philadelphia, and suddenly at 3 1/2 games it was a race again!  However, 
Atlanta--still a .500 team in the last month--had to win a few games in a weeks
time, and Cinci really sucked last week, going 0-for-7 and 5-for-13 never helps.
In that time though, the Braves only won enough to stretch the lead to 7 1/2,
and even watch it shrink to 6 1/2.  

What a pain!!  I posted last week that I was certain the race was over.
But the Braves aren't cooperating.  So I say to Ted Turner's boys:

    SHIT OR GET OFF THE POT!!!

(excuse me)  If you don't want it, let San Diego have it!  Just don't
keep me here always with that nagging thought in the back of my mind that 
the Reds could actually win it.  As they say in those damn annoying AT&T
commercials, "It just isn't worth it."

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: fester@island.COM (Mike Fester)
Subject: Re: Lies, Damn Lies, & Statistics (was Re: The Monthly Cecil Fielder Thread
Organization: /usr/local/rn/organization
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 15:54:25 GMT

In article <1992Sep12.211605.24570@cs.cornell.edu> tedward@cs.cornell.edu (Edward [Ted] Fischer) writes:
>In article <10010693@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> mjs@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Marc Sabatella) writes:
>>
>>This doesn't change the fact that first base is a relatively
>>easy/unimportant position; Fryman would still get brownie points were
>>he really an above average fielder.  His 1991 DA would suggest
>>otherwise, however - a rather Lansfordian .571 at third in 1991.
>
>Mike Fester believes he plays a better shortstop.  Not impossible, as
>the positions require different skills...  He also *seems* to hit
>better when playing shortstop.  (Though that could be a statistical
>fluke.)

Slight corrections here; make that "Elias believes" and "fielding stats tend
to support" and I'll agree. It may be that he's not used to playing 3rd, having
been a SS for so long.

He does seem to hit better at SS than at 3rd. Possible explanations (in addition
to Valentine's "fluke") could be a) he feels less comfortable at 3rd, thus
doesn't concentrate on his hitting as much b) he gets moved to #3 in the order,
and gets to hit with men on base more.

Mike
-- 
Disclaimer - I'm only doing what the little voices tell me to do.
From: p_emond@pavo.concordia.ca (PATRICK EMOND)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Mark Gardner
Date: 14 Sep 92 20:34:00 GMT
Organization: Concordia University
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41


   Mr. Mark Gardner got shelled AGAIN last night vs. the Mets, giving up 5
 runs in 3 2/3. Fortunately, Larrrry Wallllker saved the day with a ninth-inning
 blast to win the game. Thank the lord M.G.'s spot doesn't come up until the 
 series in Shea next weekend (and look for Bill Krueger to start)...

--is it my imagination, or did Lee Guetterman face only two batters (Larry and
 Larry Walker) in the series?

 3 back and storming into Pennsylvania... GO EXPOS!

 Patrick Emond
 Concordia U.
 Montreal, Can.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: nss3@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Noel Steere)
Subject: Re: DAVID CONE TO BLUE JAYS
Reply-To: nss3@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 18:38:46 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.184620.3766@news2.cis.umn.edu> kirsch@epx.cis.umn.edu (Dave Kirsch) writes:
>  P.S. One last thing .. those who read the McWeekly should check out the
>last issue in the 'letters' section. It seems Noel Steere finally got his mom
>to write a letter for him and it got published (they wouldn't accept his
>letters before becase they were written in crayon with lots of spelling
                ^^^^^^ --> "because"
>mistakes and backwards letters). 

Um, Dave, Mom just wanted me to point this out.

>-- 
>Dave Hung Like a Jim Acker Slider Kirsch            kirsch@epx.cis.umn.edu 
>"Blue Jays - break my heart again in '92"    Roberto Hernandez throws peas  
>"I believe virtually everything I read, and I think that is what makes me
>   MORE of a selective human" - Joe Average, baseball fan and media puppet

Noel Steere                  |...of the Dave Rossing fan club
GM/Manager, New York Knights |Knights' Run Total: 467 Runs in 93 games
Internet Baseball League     |Projected Season Total: 813  Target: 1000!
nss3@midway.uchicago.edu     |HECTOR VILLANUEVA FOR PRESIDENT
                             |(Heck, the Cubs sure aren't using him!)
Make outs, not walks!        |OMAR VIZQUEL FOR VICE-PRESIDENT
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: dkeisen@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dave Eisen)
Subject: Re: Times on Base: all-time records and Frank Thomas
Organization: Sequoia Peripherals, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 92 19:12:13 GMT

In article <BuBoxL.IuA@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> rstimets@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (robert and stimets) writes:

>If so, why do managers intentionally walk batters?  It would seem to be 
>universally counter-productive.  I guess in a close game it wouldn't matter 
>that a team will likely score 2.254 runs as opposed to 1.946.  The chance 
>of the batter hitting directly to a drawn in first or third or to the 
>pitcher (best case) is worth it to put the batter on.


There are several reasons.

1. Yes, the expected number of runs is higher with the bases loaded
   than it is with men on second and third. A triple scores 3 runs
   instead of 2, a double might do the same, and a home run scores
   4 instead of 3.

   But the expected number of runs is not the only consideration. If
   the score is tied in the bottom of the ninth, all you care is whether
   or not the opponent scores 1 run. A double loses for you either
   way, as does a triple or a home run. A ground ball double play
   that ends the inning is possible with the bases loaded but the same
   ground ball could score the winning run if there are only men on
   second and third.

   So while the expected number of runs might well increase after the
   walk, the probability of scoring at least one run might well decrease. 
   And in some situations, that is the relevant probability.

2. The expectations listed in the table are the expected number of
   runs in each situation ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL. Frequently all else
   is *not* equal. The expected number of runs with men on second 
   and third, two out, and Canseco up is a good deal higher than the 
   expected number of runs with the bases loaded and two out with
   me at the plate. Platoon differences make enough of a difference
   so sometimes this analysis makes sense with a major leaguer coming
   up instead of me.

and the most common reason:

3. Manager stupidity. As the deity Bill James said "most of the time
   an intentional walk makes as much sense as an intentional error
   or an intentional strikeout on offense." (Quote is from memory,
   I'm sure I got it wrong in detail.) 

   You were right to question the value of intentional walks. It would
   be nice if more managers questioned it as well. As well as more
   members of the media --- a manager who does not order an intentional
   walk when "the book" indicates one is bound to be criticized a
   lot harder than one who gets burned by the additional base runner.
   The bad consequences of an omitted IBB (say a home run by the player
   you allowed to bat) are much more visible than an extra run that
   comes about when you give an IBB that you shouldn't have given.


-- 
Dave Eisen    dkeisen@leland.Stanford.EDU   Sequoia Peripherals: (415) 967-5644
      There's something in my library to offend everybody.
        --- Washington Coalition Against Censorship
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Autographs
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 17:20:29 GMT

In article <1992Sep6.040246.22610@Princeton.EDU> roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:
>In article <5SEP199222314685@ahab.mit.edu> kettler@ahab.mit.edu (KETTLER, THOMAS R.) writes:
>>In article <24643@oasys.dt.navy.mil>, hambric@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Stephen Hambri writes...
>>>cap and Canseco T-shirt, called out "Mr. Canseco, could we please have
>>>your autograph?"  The reply:  "20 bucks and its yours."  I haven't heard
>>>my nephews mention Jose since.
>
>>If not, then 
>>$100 is too low and it will be closer to $200 for a couple autographs. Note: 
>>I say this with indignation at what is going on now.
>
>Indignation or no, isn't it odd that nobody's mentioned yet that Canseco
>was probably *busy* at the time?  If he was warming up, then that wa no 
>time for an autograph.  He may have said 'no' in the wrong way, but 'no'
>is, imho, the correct answer unless he's just standing around doing nothing.
>
>Some players like to focus before a game.  If they get into signing
>autographs, that can take up a lot of time -- and if they don't get
>everyone, their reputation *still* suffers.  

A lot of players stopped signing autographs for free when they found out
that some kids would get players' autographs, and then turn around and
sell them for the aforementioned twenty dollars.  Unfortunate for the
kids who are still sincere, but then what are you going to do with an
autograph anyway?

My favorite approach is that of <Cy Young winner and husband of Nancy,
rather than the Red Sox reject> Mike Marshall, who'd tell kids he'd
trade them his autograph for the autographs of all of their teachers
in school.
-- 
           .........................................................
          ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
         the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
         here i sit looking for a warming smile in a house of cold wit
From: spira@panix.com (Greg "Sarcasm Is A Way Of Life" Spira)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: The Monthly Cecil Fielder Thread
Date: 11 Sep 92 00:04:12 GMT
Organization: Boo!

In <1992Sep10.203439.17955@cs.rose-hulman.edu> rickert@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (John H. Rickert) writes:

>In article <1992Sep9.224723.7006@panix.com> spira@panix.com (Greg "Sarcasm Is  
>A Way Of Life" Spira) writes:
>> But the value of these hits are not independent from the player's defensive
>> position because a 2bman who draws a walk has a greater chance of scoring
>> than a first baseman who draws a walk.  

>Such positionism cannot be allowed!!! :-)
>Paul Molitor can still outrun Jody Reed, Lou Whitaker ...
>Even on the days he plays firstbase.
>(what? typical levels? what are those?  :-) 

Actually, speed has nothing to do with what I was trying to say.  However,
I phrased this rather disastorously.

What I meant to say was this: a .270/.350/.400 second baseman who walks
is more likely to score than a .270/.350/.400 first baseman who walks.
The why isn't speed but that the lineup surrounding the second baseman
is, on average, going to be better than the lineup surrounding the first
baseman.  All other things, like park factors etc., being equal of course.

Greg 
-- 
  spira@panix.com       "The one-O delivery to Fisk.  He swings.  Long drive,  
 cmcl2!panix!spira      left field!  If it stays fair, it's gone!  Home Run!"  
158-17 Riverside Dr.                     Ned Martin, 10/22/75   
Whitestone NY 11357          (Insert your favorite baseball moment here) 
Xref: sparky rec.sport.baseball:27364 soc.culture.japan:8118
From: yajima@nttcom.ntt.jp (YAJIMA Hiroshi)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball,soc.culture.japan
Subject: Japan Central League
Date: 16 Sep 92 00:21:29 GMT
Distribution: rec
Organization: NTT Network Information Systems Labs. Musashino, Tokyo

Japan Central League Standing (Through games on Tuesday September 15th)

                          W   L   T   Pct.   GB
Hanshin Tigers           61  52   2  .540    --
Yakult Swallows          58  53   1  .523    2.0
Yomiuri Giants           60  56   0  .517    2.5
Hiroshima Carp           58  56   0  .509    3.5
Taiyo Whales             55  62   1  .470    8.0
Chunichi Dragons         51  64   0  .443   11.0
------------------

   Alas, Yakult Swallows lost seven consecutive games while Hanshin Tigers
won five consecutive victories with a 2-0 shutout of Hiroshoma Carp at Koshien
Stadium. Hateful Yomiuri Giants' loss to Chunichi Dragons at Nagoya Stadium is
my sole consolation.

------- Hiroshi
--

    |  / __  __/ __  __/ Hiroshi Yajima, 
  / | /     /       /    NTT Network Information Syatems Laboratories,
_/  _/    _/      _/     9 - 11 Midori-Cho 3-Chome Musashino-Shi,
                         Tokyo, 180 Japan,  E-MAIL: yajima@nttcom.ntt.jp
                         TEL: +81 422-59-4256	 FAX: +81 422-59-4254
From: wapitten@remus.rutgers.edu (William Pittenger)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: I need some stats
Date: 7 Sep 92 20:12:25 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


	Does anyone have to box score stats from this saturday's
games?
I need to get Kirt Manwarings, G. Pena [STL] Finley[HOU], F.Jose[stl]
, Harnisch[hou], M.Clark[STL], and D.Jones[HOU] stats from that night.
I just need the boxscore info for my roto league.  

Thanks,

-Bill P.
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Pittenger            "I smile because I have not idea what is going on"
Douglass Library GAL             
Site Manager RUCS-US                         wapitten@gandalf.rutgers.edu
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey         
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell)
Subject: Re: Bad Free-agent signings (was Re: Ripken's Season)
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 19:21:17 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.172440.11817@afterlife.ncsc.mil> jfo@afterlife.ncsc.mil (John Ormonde) writes:
>Maybe, the Indians have Keith Hernandez and Wayne Garland as their
>contenders for the title.  

Hernandez couldn't have been signed for that much money.  Garland made
less in his ten-year contract than Ripken will make in the first two
months of his contract -- even account for inflation, it's no contest.
-- 
           .........................................................
          ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
         the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
         here i sit looking for a warming smile in a house of cold wit
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Just a thought...
From: grabiner@math.harvard.edu (David Grabiner)
Date: 8 Sep 92 17:54:57 EDT
Organization: Harvard University Dept. of Mathematics
In-reply-to: wapitten@remus.rutgers.edu's message of 4 Sep 92 21:12:52 GMT

In article <Sep.4.17.12.51.1992.2511@remus.rutgers.edu>, William Pittenger writes:

> 	If you were a manager or GM and you only had these two
> choices, no if, ands, or buts, or conditions, but just the choice of
> having a team that had excellent pitching and terrible hitting, or
> terrible pitching and excellent hitting.

I'd rather have the hitting.  Either team would be likely to finish .500
this year, but hitting is more valuable in the long run because it is
more consistent.  With a good offense virtually guaranteed for several
years, I would have time to develop a pitching staff and possibly win
the pennant.

--
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: 6669030@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: The trouble with Angels...
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 23:06:48 GMT

I watched the Angels recently in a Series against Oakland, and I cam to
the following conclusion:

The California Angels are the most inept, punchless, wimpy, team in the majors.

Who let them in this league?  And how on earth have they managed 60+ wins?
Mr. Lu from Stanford, could you clue me in on some of this?

p.s. Most of this is just pathetic rambling from a frustrated Twins fan who
begs, prays and grovels for someone to beat the A's.
From: genetic+@pitt.edu (Dr. Dave)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: REPOST: Information on MLB Stadiums
Date: 10 Sep 92 00:16:38 GMT
Organization: Department of Industrial Engineering

Thus spake uzogg@mcl.ucsb.edu (Kevin Galinsky):
>In <9209091631.AA138675@sub.aix.rpi.edu> sullis@RPI.EDU (Sean C. Sullivan) writes:

>>Baltimore Orioles         Camden Yards       47,000

>Baltimore plays at Oriole Park AT Camden Yards

Not in *my* house they don't.

(Camden Yards Forever!  Down with "Oriole Park"!)

-- 
      David M. Tate      | From my dugout sleep I fell into the Game
 dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu | And I crouched in the circle while my insides froze
 Randall 'Chico' Jarrell | One out from death, one hit from dreamt-of glory
"Death of a Pinch Hitter"| I woke to 'Strike One!' and the nightmare sliders...
From: lynch@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Howard Lynch)
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 23:12:09 GMT
Subject: Redus?
Organization: OCD IC MFG
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball

What is the status of Gary Redus?

I haven't seen him in a box for almost 2 weeks.  Will he get
much playing time from here on out?

Thanks for any feedback (ASAP) !!!

Howard Lynch
aka Lynch "MOB"
hl@hpocia.sj.hp.com
j
Xref: sparky rec.sport.baseball:27227 rec.sport.baseball.fantasy:686
From: demers@cs.ucsd.edu (David DeMers)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball,rec.sport.baseball.fantasy
Subject: Anyone know if these guys are subject to the expansion draft?
Date: 13 Sep 92 20:35:33 GMT
Followup-To: rec.sport.baseball
Organization: =CSE Dept., U.C. San Diego

I don't have enough reference material to make full determination
of the number of seasons these Padre players have had;
so I'm not sure  if they are subject to the expansion draft or
not.  I believe that Painter and Gainer ARE, and the rest aren't.
I'm making up the Padre protection list for the mock draft and
will go by that (Gainer/Painter draftable, the others not) if
I don't hear differently.

Player/pos		1992 Team	Notes:
---------------------------------------------------------
Lance Painter	P	Wichita		I'm pretty sure that this is his
					third season 
Jay Gainer	1B/OF   Wichita		ditto, but less sure
J.D. Noland	OF	Wichita		I think this is his second?
Pedro Martinez	P	Wichita		I think this is his second?
Mark Gieseke    OF	Wichita		I think this is his second?
Tim Worrell	P	Las Vegas	did not play a full season this year


All of these played A ball last year but I don't know if they played in
1990; Painter probably did. 

-- 
Dave DeMers			 ddemers@UCSD   demers@cs.ucsd.edu
Computer Science & Engineering	C-014		demers%cs@ucsd.bitnet
UC San Diego					...!ucsd!cs!demers
La Jolla, CA 92093-0114	(619) 534-0688, or -8187, FAX: (619) 534-7029