HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball

In rec.sport.baseball, tom@ssd.csd.harris.com (Tom Horsley) writes:

    Actually, on a somewhat more serious note, what do people think the effect
    of having a "mile high" home field will be on the Rockies? Will players who
    would lack homerun power anywhere else get used to hitting balls out of the
    park at home, then wind up just hitting lots of fly balls on the road?
    --
I know that 2 days do not make a season, but this past weekend at Mile-Hi in
Denver 2 teams did nothing to further the thought of balls flying out left and
right!  The Astros (not a ton of power) and White Sox played 2 exhibition
games and NO balls left the park.  One guy (Huff) from Chicago, hit the left
field wall down the line (335 ft) and G. Bell took one to the track in 
straight away left field.  I know it was only 2 games but.....

In batting practice before the Saturda games, Pete (stinky) Incaviglia hit a
ball 440 feet out to dead center ( 423 to the fence).  That was the only big
shot that I heard about.  Big Frank Thomas didn't even go deep to the best
of my knowledge.  There were a few complaints about the backdrop in center
not being `big enough'.  The ball was hard to see according to more than 1
hitter and Mile-Hi officials have promised to look at solving that issue.
Other than that the games were fun to be at and have a lot of people wishing
it was next year already!
From: kirsch@ux.acs.umn.edu (Dave Kirsch)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Henderson vs. Ryan
Date: 14 Apr 92 20:57:31 GMT
Organization: David Cone's Pull Toys and Assorted Paraphenalia, Inc.

In article <texdude.703211528@camelot> texdude@camelot.bradley.edu (Philip 
"not to be confused with Dick" Allen) writes:
>
>This is totally idiotic.  Rickey Henderson is a great baseball player, but
>he isn't even in the same league as Ryan when it comes to quality.

  Uh, yeah. Rickey's the greatest leadoff hitter the game has ever seen, IMHO.
He's easily the best leadoff hitter of his generation, and gives you power as
a bonus. Consider his level of competition, and I say he's the best of all
time. Tim Raines in his prime gave Rickey a run for his money, but other than
that it ain't close.  

  Nolan Ryan is close to being GOD (Roger Clemens), but he's been pitching 
better the last several years than he did the rest of his career. Early on, 
he walked *lots* of batters, although it was sure fun watching him K all
those batters as well. His K/BB ratio the last few years is the best it's
ever been, and it sure doesn't seem to have hurt his H/IP ratio.  

  I love Nolan Ryan as much as anyone, and I'm sure some of my fascination
with power pitchers and strikeouts comes from watching him as a kid. But,
let's not belittle Rickey and put Nolan on a pedestal at his expense. 

>Nolan Ryan is the all-time leader in strikeouts, strikeouts/innings pitched
>(for more than 500 IP), and no-hitters.  He ranks in the top ten or twenty
>in wins, lowest opponents' BA, lowest opponents' SLG, and shutouts.  Last
>year, Ryan led the majors in lowest BA/OBA/SLG allowed (.172/.263/.285) and
>K/9 IP (10.6).  He also ranked third in K's in the AL (203) and fifth in
>ERA (2.91).  And he did this at age 45.  (Let's see how good Henderson is at
>45)

  Two corrections. One, at least Tom Henke (and maybe others with 500+ IP) 
has a higher lifetime K/9IP ratio compared to Ryan, ~10.3 K/9IP to ~9.6 K/9IP.
Two, Juan Guzman had a lower SLG allowed last year (.268); for some reason, I
thought he was second best in SLG allowed, but he was the best among starters.
(Didn't Dick Radatz have 500+ IP and a really high K rate? Henke seems real 
similar to him.) 

  One thing I agree with is that we aren't likely to see Rickey do this kind 
of stuff at age 45. I suspect Ryan has done more this late in his career for 
his HOF chances than any other player in history, excepting someone like 
Satchel Paige that didn't really *have* a career until he was quite old. 

-- 
Dave Hung Like a Jim Acker Slider Kirsch  ...   of the Warren Newson fan club 
kirsch@ux.acs.umn.edu                          "Blue Jays all the way in '92"  
"Sportswriters mostly sit in bars and argue about things, then go home and 
 write all the clever bullshit they think they should have said at the time."
From: hjeat@lhdsy1.lahabra.chevron.com (Jerry Eaton)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: NL Roster questions...
Date: 10 Apr 92 14:29:51 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Chevron Exploration & Production Services, Houston, TX.

In article <9zsjntr@lynx.unm.edu> kbos@carina.unm.edu writes:
>In article <2817@lhdsy1.lahabra.chevron.com> hjeat@lhdsy1.lahabra.chevron.com (Jerry Eaton) writes:
>>
>>Mike Simms was out of reassignment-to-the minors options, and the Astros
>>traded Simms in the last few days of Spring training to the Philles for RHP
>>Jason Grimsley, who had major control problems last year. Grimsley was assigned
>>to the Astros AAA team in Tuscon (PCL). I don't know if the Phillies are
>>carrying Simms on the major league roster or not.
>
>Is this true?  I thought the deal was Schilling for Grimsley straight. Yecch.
>

No, I had it wrong. As you and Nelson *correctly* point out, Schilling went to
the Phillies for Grimsley. Must have been my wishful thinking that it was
Simms. Simms was out of options, passed untouched through waivers, and accepted
reassignment to Tuscon.
-- 
           Jerry Eaton
  hjeat@usho29.hou281.chevron.com
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: snichols@adobe.com (Sherri Nichols)
Subject: Re: Errors (was Re: Robinson and Boyer)
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 15:47:47 GMT

In article <1992Apr11.233104.7386@m.cs.uiuc.edu> steph@cs.uiuc.edu (Dale Stephenson) writes:
>Here's a legitimate use of errors:
>
>Calculating ERAs.

Why?  Do you think errors are randomly distributed behind pitchers?  I
don't.  

>Here is a (fictitious) situation in which error totals actually tell 
>you something about the fielders:
>
>		Inn	Chnces	Errors
>Murphy, RF	700	700	  2
>Lucy,   RF	700	700	100
>
>Assuming ballpark effects, L/R effects, and equivalent leagues :->, we
>can tell that we have two outfielders with equivalent range, but one
>is a lot better than the other.

How do you figure equivalent range?  What's your definition of chances?  If
it's the usual PO+A, then all you've told me here is that Lucy got charged
with an error on 98 balls that Murphy let go for a hit.  Why is this worse?

Sherri Nichols
snichols@adobe.com
From: dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu (David M Tate)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Subjective trivia question
Date: 12 Apr 92 01:53:12 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Apr11.204827.29852@andante.att.com> rjh@andante.att.com (Robert Holt) writes:
>In article <204705@unix.cis.pitt.edu> dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu (David M Tate) writes:
>>[Yogi is] the one I had in mind.  Hard to find anyone better, in either peak
>>value or career value, who never led in anything at all...
>
>Actually, it wasn't very hard if you're going by T&P's career
>"Adjusted Batting Runs".  You don't have to change teams or even
>position.  According to T&P, Bill Dickey (career .313/.382/.486)
>edges out Yogi Berra (.285/.350/.482) by 247 to 238 ABR, and 
>neither led the AL in any major offensive category.

"Adjusted Batting Runs" doesn't work, because it doesn't account for era
differences.  Unless you believe that most hitters in the 30's were better
than most hitters in other eras, this isn't a reasonable measure.

However, it's still a good pick.  Dickey had a career PRO+ of 128; Berra's
was 126.  Dickey had peak years above 160; Berra's best was 144.

What Berra *did* do that Dickey didn't was play full-time.  Yogi had 500+
plate appearances 9 different years; Dickey did it 5 times, and averages
less than 300 AB per season.  If Dickey was platooned a significant portion
of the time, I'd have to give the advantage to Berra.

T&P rate them almost identical in overall career value, but that includes the
bogus Fielding Runs, which are even more bogus than usual for catchers.

Good nominee, though; he's certainly a candidate.

(As an aside, I tend to believe that Dickey should be penalized in such
comparisons for playing in an era when the *variance* of performance level
was so wide, inflating %-above-league-average measures as well as absolute
measures.  I'm not sure how to make the adjustment, though...)


-- 
          David M. Tate            |"The man who hath no music in himself
     dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu       | Nor is not moved by concord of sweet sound
  A poem should be dumb, / As old  | Is fit for treason, stratagems, and spoils
 medallions to the thumb.-MacLeish | 	Shakespeare, "Merchant of Venice", A.V
From: pcaster@mizar.usc.edu (Dodger)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Dodger Roster Move
Date: 6 Apr 1992 00:02:37 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: mizar.usc.edu

The Dodgers made a somewhat surprising move today.  They place Jay
Howell on the 15 day disabled list and replaced him on the roster with
Eric Karros.  It was widely expected that if Howell wasn't ready, Kip
Gross would take his spot, but the Dodgers surprised everyone by keeping
Karros.  Karros had a GREAT Spring, so perhaps this was his reward.
						BleedsDodgerBlue
From: monty@SSD.CSD.HARRIS.COM (Monty Norwood)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Mark Grace
Date: 17 Apr 92 18:00:07 GMT
Organization: Harris Computers Systems Division, Fort Lauderdale,FL

In article <maj1.703274925@Ra.MsState.Edu> maj1@Ra.MsState.Edu (Mark "Beren" Jamison) writes:
>Who in the Cubs organization thinks Grace is God??
>I'm serious who does??

I am not sure anyone thinks he is God. I believe they think he is the best
1B man they have. He is excellent with the glove and prior to 1991 put up
very respectable (if unspectacular) offensive numbers. In 1989, he had
excellent offensive numbers (.450 SLG, .400+ OBP).

>
>Why would you put up with a first baseman like that and dump the likes of
>Rafael Palmeiro who is listed as the most valuable 1b in the AL last year??

They didn't dump Palmeiro. They traded him essentially for Mitch Williams.
They had people like Dwight Smith and Jerome Walton in the minors and took
a chance that fixing the bullpen would improve the team. In 1989, Jim Frey and
Zimmer looked like geniuses. Even now, the Cubs have McElroy and Scanlan
in the pen (received for WIlliams). Perhaps not a great trade, but certainly
not a disaster or a "dumping".

In 1989, Palmeiro was hot in the first half then hit something like .230
after the break finishing at .275/.374/.354 (BA/SLG/OBP). In 1988 for the
Cubs he was .307/.436/.349 while Grace put up .296/.403/.371, very comparable
numbers, with Palmeiro slugging a little better and Grace putting up better
OBP numbers.

In 1990, Palmeiro had .319/.468/.361 and Grace had .309/.413/.372. Edge to
Palmeiro, primarily in slugging. Don't know how to factor league and
park effects into this.

So it appears that based on 1990 and 1991 Palmeiro has developed the power
the Cubs thought he was lacking back in 1988 and Grace has not. Otherwise,
they appear quite comparable (Grace better in 1989, Palmeiro in 1991 and
pretty close otherwise). Grace plays better defense.

There is no doubt that Palmeiro was much better in 1991 than Grace. But that
was only one season. If I had to guess, I think Palmeiro will continue to
hit better than Grace, particularly in the slugging department. Nontheless,
the trade was not Palmeiro for Grace, it was Palmeiro for pitching (williams).
The Cubs won a title in 1989, Texas still remains one of 3(?) teams to never
win a division title. McElroy for the Cubs, and Williams for the Phillies
were both effective last year.

>
>Enquiring Minds really want to know..
>
>BTW- I realize that Palmeiro was listed first because Thomas didn't get enough
>     playing time at 1b, but even second behind Thomas is better than Grace
>     any day..
>--
>______________________________________________________________________________
>                       Still looking for Luthien
>maj1@ra.msstate.edu                                  maj1@beren.b17a.ingr.com
>______________________________________________________________________________

Hope this helps...
From: aaron@juliet.caltech.edu (Packman, Aaron I.)
Subject: Re: NY MET ENVY
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.40    
Organization: California Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 08:59:00 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.013919.1@wharton.upenn.edu>, chen70@wharton.upenn.edu writes...
>For all those idiots and athletic supporters of loser teams such as the
>Cubs, etc, it's really discouraging to see the rampent level of MET ENVY,
>which is defined as follows: propensity for a fan of a perennial loser
>(see cubs:1945) to become an anti-fan of the team clearly recognized as 
>the superior and perennial front-runner.  Symptoms include schizoid 
>delusions in which all perceptions of reality and reason are non-existant;
>the evidence here is based on the multiple reactions of fans of these 
>perennial losing teams.  Usually concentrated in Cleveland, the epidemic
>is spreading rapidly to Philadelphia, Chicago, and Houston.  

(lots of nauseating stuff deleted)

More rantings of the Obnoxious Met Fan (an in-all-ways deficient subset of
humanity in general, and baseball fans in particular).  I think the only 
thing worse than the superior and perennial early-season pomposity of The
Obnoxious Met Fan is his/her conviction that the Mets have always been and
will always be the best team, the best franchise, with the best players ever, 
of all time, and for all eternity. (Have I overstated myself sufficiently?)
Sorry, but this is not the case.  The truth is that the Mets have had a good
team over the last 10 years, but not a dynasty.  Probably not even the best 
in their division, certainly not the best in the league.  Before that, they 
had one miracle season, one top-notch player, and that's it. Not much history
to talk about (see mets:1945).  In fact, in terms of the history of the game,
the Mets are near the bottom.  So, please, try to relax a bit.

Aaron Packman
From: obaidr@bullet.ecf (OBAID ARIF)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: For Jays fans only!
Date: 11 Apr 92 05:17:26 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility
Originator: obaidr@bullet.ecf.toronto.edu

Even though the BJ's are 4-0 and even though there is NO chance of them
missing the World Series this year ( go home G. Bell and Sox) , may I 
suggest to all BJ fans to keep their cool.  Please, no "I told you so",
or "Eat our dust" remarks. 

Let's reserve them for October. :-)

Besides, anyone who saw the game aginst the Orioles yesterday (Jays 4-3)
in which the Jays came back in the bottom of the 9th to win 4-3 after 
a 3-0 deficit and STILL is not a believer.....well what can I say!!!

Alomar for Prez (Prime Minister, I should say)!

Stay Alive !

Arif [ a Believer] Obaid
From: sabbott@hazel.hac.com (Scott Abbott)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Camden Yards
Date: 14 Apr 92 18:54:09 GMT
Reply-To: sabbott@hazel.hac.com (Scott Abbott)
Distribution: na
Organization: Hughes Aircraft Company

>>In article <1992Apr13.092926.731@dvorak.amd.com> twhite@mozart.amd.com  
>>(Tom White) writes:
>>>    So who hit the first homer in the Orioles' new park?

>>Mike Devereaux...nice shot too..

>I thought it was Paul Sorrento of the Indians.

It was Paul Sorrento of the Indians, who also has the distinction of the first base hit ever in the 
new ballpark (on Opening Day).

Suprisingly, I think that only two (maybe three) home runs have been hit in Camden Yards in the
three games played there, despite the short right field porch.
From: rlm7638@tamsun.tamu.edu (Jack McKinney)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Missed first two Cubs-Phillies games...
Date: 10 Apr 92 15:30:44 GMT
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station


     I missed the first two Cubs games this season. Can someone send me
a description of the games (who was at-bat when and how the play turned
out, etc.)  I am not looking for a pitch by pitch account, but would be
appreciative of an account  somewhat like a scorecard,  keeping up with
who was struckout, who made it to base, who scored, etc.  Thanks in ad-
vance!

+---------------------------------------------------+------------------------+
| "Our country is making nuclear weapons like       | Jack McKinney          |
|  there's no...    well, anyway..."                | rlm7638@tamsun.tamu.edu|
+---------------------- -Emo Philips ---------------+------------------------+
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: todd@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Todd Pedlar)
Subject: Re: Mike Schooler
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 20:04:20 GMT

In article <92097.093455ACPS7151@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> dangerous alliance <ACPS7151@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> writes:
>For whom it may concern,
>
>Schooler is doing fine is arm is back in condition and he has his velocity back
>, but i am still not sure on his reliablity in the pen.  But that is my thinkin
>g...

He may be back physically, but his showing opening night was unfortunately
less than impressive... :(
tkp


______________________________________________________________________________
Todd K. Pedlar                   ! 
Graduate Student                 !      "Damn it, Jim, I'm a physicist,
Nuclear Physics                  !
Northwestern University          !              not an engineer!"
                                 !
GO U NU!                         !  
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: f67709317@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (Greg Franklin)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Kevin Brown = Cy Young?
Date: 14 Apr 92 06:19:32 GMT
Distribution: usa,local
Organization: University of Arizona
Nntp-Posting-User: f67709317

In article <1992Apr14.044948.24101@CS.ORST.EDU>, littaum@nyssa.CS.ORST.EDU (Mike Littau) writes:
> In article <texdude.703219143@camelot> texdude@camelot.bradley.edu (Philip Allen) writes:
>>Ok, the Cy Young is pretty unlikely, but Kevin's been doing pretty well.
> 
> So far so good, but I'm more impressed by the offensive production they've
> had, even when Franco's been out.  

I'm not optimistic about his chances.  I had him on my roto team in 1989 
and 1990 before I threw him back.  He started out strong both years 
before pulling up lame around mid-season.  Nice kid; I'd have rooted for him
even if he wasn't my property.  He still hasn't won more than 12 games in a
season.

If Valentine is letting him throw CGs in April, you should start worrying.
Soon.
-- 
Greg Franklin                             "Death is everywhere,
f67709317@ccit.arizona.edu          there are fries on the windscreen."
From: f67709317@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (Greg Franklin)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Really bad, lame-o regulars on WS winners
Date: 14 Apr 92 07:20:35 GMT
Distribution: usa,local
Organization: University of Arizona

Recently we've heard talk about "Fettucini" Alfredo Griffin being a
desirable property for a Series-bound team to acquire.  Such patter
has been based on the fact that after the Dodgers acquired Griffin
for Bob Welch in 1988, LA won the World Series.  Although he hit a 
lusty .199, contributed no power, and was out half the year, we are 
being urged to consider Griffin a useful player.

Naah.

But have we considered that there may have been a *worse* player
than Alfredo Griffin to play regularly on a World Series winner?

Consider Todd Cruz, third sacker for the 1983 Orioles:
  - ~.199 BA
  - 10 HR, 48 RBI in ~440 AB
  - 22 BB, 108 SO
  - no speed at all
  - no particular defensive reputation
Not exactly Brooks Robinson.  Not even Ken Boyer.

To add to the weirdness, the O's acquired Cruz in an in-season trade
from Seattle.  Only Joe Altobelli can explain why he stuck this
hits-as-bad-as-Alfredo, plays-3B-instead-of-SS bum in the lineup
for the stretch drive and the playoffs.

And yet the Orioles won it all.  Go figure.

Possible explanations:
 1) Todd Cruz was the best option they had.  I'm dubious about this;
even their AA and AAA third basemen couldn't have possibly hit worse
in the bigs than Cruz did.  (Similarly, the Dodgers didn't fare too
poorly in the regular season with Dave Anderson instead of Griffin.)
 2) Cruz was in a horrible slump that made his numbers look worse than
they really are.  I haven't checked, but I'm fairly certain his
career stats look a lot like his 1983 stats.  Why else was he on the M's?
 3) Cruz was an "intangibles" player with the "will to win."  Oh,
like Carney Lansford?
 4) With Bumbry, Lowenstein, Ripken, Murray, Singleton, Roenicke, and
Dwyer available, it didn't matter a damn how well Cruz hit, because 
everyone else could score the runs.  This seems most likely.

Members of the Fettucini Fan Club, please take note.  Your favorite
ballplayer is barely on the level of Todd Cruz.  At best.

Now, does anyone want to contribute to my list of really bad, lame-o 
regulars on WS winners?  My current rankings include:
  1) Todd "Caribbean" Cruz, 1983 Orioles
  2) "Fettucini" Alfredo Griffin, 1988 Dodgers
  3) Dan "TWG" Gladden, 1991 Twins
Note that all of these players, quite lowly regarded to begin with,
performed *below* their measly expectations, yet still played every
day and got a ring.  Thus crappy players who played over their head for
one year (cf. Billy Hatcher, 1990 Reds) don't really belong on my list. 

Basically, I'm looking for the kind of players who make both statheads
and gut-feelings types cringe and say, "Why the hell is ----- in the
lineup?!"  Give it your best shot!
-- 
Greg Franklin                             "Death is everywhere,
f67709317@ccit.arizona.edu          there are fries on the windscreen."
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: st902415@pip.cc.brandeis.edu (Adam Levin)
Subject: Re: Ramon, MRI, Crews, Comments, and a Question
Reply-To: st902415@pip.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 18:02:30 GMT

In article <ku2ci3INNrpi@mizar.usc.edu>, pcaster@mizar.usc.edu (Dodger) writes:

>What I don't understand is this:  Why can't the Dodgers (or any team)
>INSIST a player have an examination to determine if anything is wrong?
>With what they pay in salaries, the teams have a right, it seems to me
>to protect their assets.  

>What do you think?  Shouldn't a team be able to insist on a complete medical
>exam if one seems warranted?  I say the Dodgers should put Ramon on the DL
>until he has the MRI and they figure out what is wrong with him.
>
>				A Disappointed Dodger
>

A similar problem presented itself in pro basketball, with Hakeem Olajuwon
and the Houston Rockets. Hakeem claimed he had pulled leg muscle, while
the Rockets said that he didn't, and insisted that he play.He refused, and
the Rockets suspended him.  With Martinez, we have the opposite, the team
thinks he has an injury, and he claims that he doesn't. I suppose that you 
are right, it can't hurt to have an MRI, but they probably shouldn't force
him by suspending or putting him on the DL. If they are wrong, they lose
their ace for two weeks; he should be able to over come it. He then says 
that he was put on unneccessarily, and there is a big feud, and, like 
Hakeem, he demands to be traded, and they lose a dominant player. It may be 
too early to tell. If this behavior from Ramon keeps up for a few starts, 
then I would start to get worried.

Your Phaithful Phillies Phan,

Adam Levin		st902415@pip.cc.brandeis.edu
"Is college hard or easy? It's easy! Just remember
 the three magic words! Sink or Swim!!!"
		--Matt Groening, _School is Hell_
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball