HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tloughin@IASTATE.EDU (Thomas M Loughin)
Subject: Re: Astros Contenders?
Reply-To: tloughin@IASTATE.EDU (Thomas M Loughin)
Organization: Iowa State University
Distribution: rec.sport.baseball
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 15:19:56 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.192315.3008@micom.com>, jscott@micom.com (James Scott)
writes:
> jscott@micom.com (James Scott) writes:
> |||> hmmm.  most recently proved by atlanta going worst to first and then
> |||> the next year collapsing its way back into the world series.
> |||>
> |||> james
> 
> kbos@carina.unm.edu (Kurt Bose) writes: 
> ||> Tendencies are just that: tendencies ... ( various facts and eloquent
> ||> description of the "plexiglass principle" deleted ) ... 
> 
> tloughin@IASTATE.EDU (Thomas M Loughin) writes:
> |> Nicely said, Kurt.  As a statistician, blah blah blah ... 
> 
> oh.  you guys are using STATISTICS!  ... never mind.
> 
Sorry...didn't mean to confuse the issue by dragging facts into it...

> geez. btw, do i NEED to include :-) ?
                      "
> 
> james
> 

-Tom
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: dave@snitor.sni.ca (Dave Till)
Subject: Re: Astros Contenders?
Organization: Siemens Nixdorf, Sietec Open Systems, Toronto, Canada
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 14:59:13 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.201506.9178@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com> paula@koufax.cv.hp.com (Paul Andresen) writes:
>Now the real issue we have to contend with is: What are we going to do with
>two Steve Smiths in r.s.bb?

Trade one of them for Greg Harris.

--Dave "aren't you glad you asked" Till
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: kenney@tribe.b17d.ingr.com (David Kenney)
Subject: Re: Howe phone number needed
Reply-To: kenney@tribe.b17d.ingr.com
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, Alabama
Distribution: rec
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 20:52:15 GMT

In article <GEORGE.93Jan7131642@sabre.cit.cornell.edu>, george@sabre.cit.cornell.edu (George Boyce) writes:
|> Does anyone have a phone number (or city) for Howe SportsData, the
|> minor league stats folks? Thanks.

Oh, for a minute there I thought you were asking for Steve Howe's home
phone number...

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Kenney                                       kenney@tribe.b17d.ingr.com
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: dkeisen@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dave Eisen)
Subject: Joe Morgan's MVPs (was Re: Alomar and Range Factor) 
Organization: Sequoia Peripherals, Inc.
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 05:40:13 GMT

In article <1993Jan10.093215.20539@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:

>>Morgan's 72-77 is one of the great peak performances in baseball history.
>>He led the Big Red Machine in OBP, SLG, and of course SB-CS (or reasonable
>>equivalent) in that time.   Bench, Perez, Rose -- not close.
>
>That's all well and good, but my question is, how did the mediots come
>to realize this?

Because unlike the previous few years when he was great by virtue 
of hitting in the .290s, walkinga ton, having good power for a
second baseman, and having good speed for anybody, he hit .327
in 1975. The Reds were an awesome team that year and they didn't
win because of their pitching. You'd expect one of their everyday
players to be the MVP. And when you combine Morgan's whole package
with a batting average a mediot would love, well that's how he
won the MVP.


-- 
Dave Eisen                               Sequoia Peripherals: (415) 967-5644
dkeisen@leland.Stanford.EDU              Home:                (415) 321-5154
       There's something in my library to offend everybody. 
          --- Washington Coalition Against Censorship
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: steph@pegasus.cs.uiuc.edu (Dale Stephenson)
Subject: Re: Burks and related mediocies
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 23:08:41 GMT

In <1993Jan6.080011.18586@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:

>In <1993Jan6.014822.12142@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
[...]
>>In other news, the Braves signed Pecota for something like two years, $1.4M.
>>My guess is that they'll be disappointed unless Pendleton is injured.  This
>>is the kind of signing that will suck up time from Blauser.  Is Blauser
>>really that bad?  What were his DAs?  The Stats Zone Ratings for him were
>>slightly above average, which would make him only slightly below average
>>when you start counting his errors -- assuming ZR has any relevance to
>>reality.

>I would *assume* Pecota is going to be spending most of his time at
>*second*, Ted.  He's not really a shortstop, anyway, and the Braves have
>a much bigger hole at second than at short.  Of course, they *had*
>the solution to that hole, Jeff Treadway, and they decided to release
>him, but, hey.  This is John Scheurholtz (sp?) we're talking about.

The Braves still have a whole at second:  STATS 1993 projections
Lemke 241/318/333
Pecota 244/318/332

Separated at birth?  No, Pecota is 6 years older.  Pecota does have a 5.50
range, to Lemke's 4.73 -- I'm not sure how well that correlates with reality,
since Lemke's supposed to be a glove man.  With a platoon like this, why not
give Carabello a shot?

>Actually, now that I think about it, this is why they signed Pecota --
>he knew him from his days in KC.

On the bright side, collecting ex-Royals is probably smarter than collecting
current ones.  :->
-- 
Dale J. Stephenson |*| (steph@cs.uiuc.edu) |*| Baseball fanatic

  "It is considered good to look wise, especially when not 
   overburdened with information" -- J. Golden Kimball
From: frisch1@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan Katz)
Subject: Re: Clark v Thomas
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 07:32:58 GMT

They are really pretty similar players, except Thomas walks 50-70 more
times each year.  And is still young enough that there is a chance he
will get even better.

Cheers,
-Valentine

-Hey, Thomas has a _lot_ more power, too.
-Jonathan Katz
From: ccastmm@prism.gatech.EDU (Mike Marler)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Deion Sanders to give up football?
Date: 8 Jan 93 17:56:35 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In <1ii8l9INN9m4@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bz832@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Wesley R. Kemmerlin) writes:

>I saw this in the latest issue of Pro Football Weekly:

> "Don't be suprised if the Atlanta Braves soon make a pitch to sign Deion
> Sanders to a baseball-only contract during baseball season.

Oh no!  Here we go on this thread again, and it is only the first week in Jan.
I will surpised to see Deion do anything different that whatever *mood* happens
to be at the top of his *doing-my-thing queue*.  The Braves had better do
a little better job of writing a contract, and as many here have said: "lets
see Deion do it for a few years in a row before getting too serious (I did
like his WS play)".  The real question: "Does Deion know what he wants to
do with his future (guess he might better ask Nike)?"
-- 
Mike Marler                        | "Saving every nickel to spend on my
Internet: ccastmm@prism.gatech.edu |  my next set of thrills..." -somebody
Disclaimer: These views are not and should not be viewed as those of OIT.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: DONS000 <DONS@UNB.CA>
Subject: Re: Babe Ruth Candy Bar
Organization: The University of New Brunswick
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 02:48:42 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.001923.15230@athena.mit.edu> cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>In article <1993Jan7.212029.14746@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>>But what candy bar is Holtzman thinking of wrt Ruth?  Is he thoughtlessly
>>assuming that the Baby Ruth bar is named for the baseball player, rather
>>than the daughter of the president?  Or is this one of those strange
>>urban legends about urban legends, and the Baby Ruth bar really *is*
>>named for Babe Ruth?
>>
>.The historians are still grappling with all-important key to the
  nation's past. Holtzman is wrong, of course.  But the Grover Cleveland
>.story may indeed be an urban legend.  Dickson's _Baseball Dictionary_
  backs the Cleveland thesis, claiming that the candy bar's manufacturer
  "has long insisted that its product was so named in 1917, when the
  candy bar came out, for the daughter of President Grover Cleveland."
  However, a new breed of revisionist historians have challenged this
  interpretation.  Stuart Flexner's _Listening to America_ claims
  that the candy bar _Babe Ruth_, introduced in the early 1920s, was
  not named for "Babe" Ruth (or for Grover Clevelnd's eldest daughter,
  who had been dead since 1904) but for the granddaughter of George
  Williamson, president of the Williamson Candy Co., which originally
  made the candy bar."

  I leave it to you to decide where the truth lies, although I'm
 tempted to abandon my more mundane dissertation topic and tackle
  this much more meaty and consequential issue.

  Don Soucy


Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: jscott@micom.com (James Scott)
Subject: Re: Astros Contenders?
Organization: yo-yo dyne propulsion 
Distribution: rec.sport.baseball
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 19:23:15 GMT

jscott@micom.com (James Scott) writes:
|||> hmmm.  most recently proved by atlanta going worst to first and then
|||> the next year collapsing its way back into the world series.
|||>
|||> james

kbos@carina.unm.edu (Kurt Bose) writes: 
||> Tendencies are just that: tendencies ... ( various facts and eloquent
||> description of the "plexiglass principle" deleted ) ... 

tloughin@IASTATE.EDU (Thomas M Loughin) writes:
|> Nicely said, Kurt.  As a statistician, blah blah blah ... 

oh.  you guys are using STATISTICS!  ... never mind.

geez. btw, do i NEED to include :-) ?

james

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: jle@world.std.com (Joe M Leonard)
Subject: Stats' correlation with winning (batters)
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 18:18:01 GMT

As a follow-on of sorts to the Fielder et al discussions, I thought I'd
run the 1992 AL team stats to see what correlated with Wins (really the
only Important stat?)...

Runs	0.673
SB-rat	0.555
TBB	0.503
SB	0.429
Hits	0.344
EB-hits	0.114
HR	0.062

I omitted RBI, since it's essentially Runs...  Several comments from this:

1. HR's show NO correlation with winning.  Granted, this is a very limited
sample, so one would have to check a bunch more years (suitably scaled
against each other) to see if this is a fluke or not.

2. TBB (and Hits to a lesser degree) suggest that getting men on base
generates wins.  Reasonable, since they have to be on to score runs, etc.

3. The Success Rate for SB is more important than the sheer number of SB's.
Again reasonable, since killing off baserunners isn't a good thing.  BTW,
SB and CS have a correlation of 0.818...

4. Interesting correlation: EB-hits with CS: -0.749.  I guess this means
that SB's are a weapon of last resort...  If you have the ability to
score "in the traditional fashion", why risk having folks gunned down?

Oh, thought I'd add - correlation against Runs:

EB-hits	0.665
Hits	0.642
SB-rat	0.603
HR	0.580
TBB	0.563
AB	0.352
CS     -0.274
SO	0.198
SB	0.146
GIDB   -0.018

EB-Hits = double + 2*triples + 3*HR's

Again, SB's by themselves are not relevant - it's their success rate
(but Bill James said this 10+ years ago).  

Joe Leonard
jle@world.std.com

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: dougb@comm.mot.com (Doug Bank)
Subject: looking for a 1993 Cubs schedule
Reply-To: dougb@ecs.comm.mot.com
Organization: Motorola Land Mobile Products Sector
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 08:56:52 GMT

Does anyone have a 1993 Cubs schedule on line (even a preliminary
schedule will do) ?

While I'm at it, is there a mailing list for Cub fans?

Thanks

-- 
Doug Bank                       Private Systems Division
dougb@ecs.comm.mot.com          Motorola Communications Sector
dougb@nwu.edu                   Schaumburg, Illinois
dougb@casbah.acns.nwu.edu       708-576-8207
From: gajarsky@pilot.njin.net (Bob Gajarsky - Hobokenite)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Astros Contenders?
Date: 7 Jan 93 03:37:20 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Somewhere in Hoboken

gord - i think yu're being a bit hard on anthony and cedeno.  both 
 players are not garbage...a .407 slugging in the astrodome isn't bad,
 y'know (anthony), and i think he'll improve to .320 / .430 this year,
 if playing full time.  cedeno was awful last year, but i think he'll improve
 as well, to .290/.400.  which isn't awful for a shortstop.

- bob gaj
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: defensive measures of performance (was -- Re: Lists: The Best Players In Baseeball)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 03:10:56 GMT

In article <1993Jan08.233632.22659@watson.ibm.com> mjones@donald.aix.kingston.ibm.com writes:
>cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>: >I definitely have more faith in it than in subjective judgement.
>: well i understand not wanting to use a subjective judgment. but DA sounds
>: pretty bad, even if better than RF. your decision to use DA instead of
>: subjective judgment sounds primarily like a... well... subjective judgment.
>
>Given the explanations that I've presented above about DA, I'd really like
>to hear what you think is wrong with it. I think it's pretty good, but if
>I'm fooling myself I want to know about it.

first off, thanks for the time you took to explain the DA and the zones.

based on what you and others have said, and if it is really true that
players' DA's don't change a lot when they change parks (how large
is the sample size and how different are the parks?) then i am willing
to admit that DA may be reasonable, especially since i don't have the time
or data to claim otherwise. if park effects appear to be negligible,
that is much of my concern. so i will defer to your judgment on the
matter of DA. btw, Valentine has made very similar points with me on
the subject via email.


i started all this after a followup to i believe it was Gord's post about "best
at position" where somebody used i believe RF to support a position
that Ryno might be a better pick than Alomar. upon investigation
RF turns out to be quite bogus, yet people still use it to make
judgments for things like "best of". i am constantly hearing things
about how Alomar is "over-rated defensively", but the way he plays just
doesn't support out the stats. so i hope people will go easy on the RF
wrt Alomar.

i am satisfied that my point has been sufficiently made.
thanks again to all who provided relevant information or opinions.

--
charles
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: paula@koufax.cv.hp.com (Paul Andresen)
Subject: Re: BRAVES/METS
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 23:49:03 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.205719.14748@miki.pictel.com>, labuskif@ame_lab.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Frank Labuski) writes:
|> Last night on SportChannel they replayed the July 4, 1985 game between the 
|> Braves and the Mets.  What a wild game, I had forgotten all about it.
|> Terry Harper of the Braves hit a two out, two run homer in the bottom of the 
|> 13th to tie it up 10-10. Afetr the Mets went up 11-10 in the top of the 18th
|> the Braves were down to their last out.  With noone else to pinch hit, they 
|> were forced to keep their pitcher, Rick Camp, in as their last hope.  Sure
|> enough, Camp hit a two out, two strike homer to send the game to the 
|> 19th.  The Mets scored five in the top of the inning.  The Braves rally came 
|> up short when they only scored twice and Camp, representing the tying run 
|> again, struck out.  Mets 16-13.  Great game!!  

Yup, probably one of the most interesting games played in the last 20 years.
I've got all 19 innings on tape. By the time the game was over, the Braves 
announcers we're so rummy they could hardly talk coherently. The Braves had
promised a fireworks show after the game, and they delivered, even though a few
of the locals were upset as it was 4 AM. 

Further information about Camp....That was his only career ML homerun. At the
time of that famous 18th inning AB, he was hitting ~.060 lifetime. '85 was
also Camp's last year in the bigs.

Obligatory anti-DH remark: It is precisely because of this scenario that I want
to see those pitchers hitting!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              If you're really hip, the passing years will show.
                                           ......Tower Of Power

  paula@koufax.cv.hp.com   Paul Andresen  Hewlett-Packard  (503)-750-3511

    home: 3006 NW McKinley    Corvallis, OR 97330       (503)-752-8424
                            A SABR member since 1979
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: frisch1@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan Katz)
Subject: Re: Get a life baseball fans... Try ping-pong!
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 07:35:55 GMT

In article <9301082157.AA27017@pserv.CFSMO.Honeywell.COM>, Khanh Nguyen <khanh@cfsmo.honeywell.com> writes:
|> 
|> I finally stooped so low as to watch a baseball game the other day.  It was
|> a tape of the "World" Series!  What a joke!  I can't believe you people.  I
|> have seen some half-assed sports in my day, but baseball has got to take
|> the cake.  I mean, really, a bunch of fat, old men running around in kid's
|> outfits, scratching themselves, and spitting on national television.  
|> 
|> Oh, and God forbid they should have to run across the field and damn near
|> have a heartattack.  Please!
|> 
|> And what do these slobs get paid?  $50,000,000 per second!  For what?
|> 
|> Have you seen a modern table tennis tourney lately?  Real action!  Mano a
|> mano battle for supremacy on the board.  Each one grabbing his paddle
|> instead of his crotch.
|> 
|> Pardon my saying so, but the only thing lamer than baseball is what you
|> call "football."
|> 
|> No flames necessary-- although I'm not sure you knobheads could scrape up
|> enough intelligence between you to come up with a good one.  Anyway, I'm
|> sure you're all REALLY offended.  Offended-- that's a big person word for
|> when you don't like something that someone said.  
|> 
|> So, don't bother.
|> 
|> Khanh

Hmm...the "Wrath of Khanh"...maybe this guy should be sent back into outer
space...

(Sorry, but it's just not worth a 'real' reply!)
-Jonathan Katz
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: frisch1@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan Katz)
Subject: Re: Cecil signs :-( :-( :-(
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 16:55:41 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.080300.18448@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
|> In article <1993Jan11.072048.3770@athena.mit.edu> frisch1@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan Katz) writes:
|> >You think Fielder is barely above average!!!
|> 
|> Yep.  Let's see, last year, McGwire, Olerud, Palmeiro, and Thomas were
|> better than Fielder, and Hrbek and Sorrento were about even with Fielder
|> offensively.  That puts him at about fifth through seventh best first
|> baseman in the AL out of fourteen first basemen -- or slightly above
|> average.  (Note that Mattingly isn't in this list of the best seven
|> first-basemen in the AL.)  You include defense in there, he'd slip 
|> further back -- Fielder is going to be a DH awfully soon, and played
|> 43 games there in 1992.  As a DH, he hit worse than Belle, Chili Davis,
|> Downing, Molitor, and Winfield -- which would rank him as the sixth
|> best DH out there, once again barely above average in a fourteen-team
|> league.
|> 
|> Let's add National League first basemen to the mix.  Bagwell, Will
|> Clark, Grace, Kruk, and McGriff all hit better -- if the Tigers
|> had switched over to the NL last year, Fielder would have been the 
|> sixth best out of thirteen NL first-basemen, once again slightly above
|> average.
|> 
|> Fielder isn't even one of the top ten first basemen in the majors.  And
|> he's going to get worse, not better -- he's a slow slugger, the type of 
|> player that doesn't age well.
|> 
|> >I am a Mets fan, and I would love to see him on the Mets.  
|> 
|> Of course you would!  Eddie Murray is only average, while Fielder is
|> slightly above average.  Plus Fielder is younger.  Of course, that's
|> why the Mets are a 73-89 team, because they think average first 
|> basemen are stars.
|> 
|> >He is clearly an impact player.  
|> 
|> Yeah, he makes a bigger impact on the seismograph for sure.
|> 
|> >Better than Bonds, no.  But a star?, yes, definitely!
|> 
|> Madonna's an even bigger star than Cecil Fielder, but I wouldn't call
|> her a great first baseman either.
|> -- 
|> ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
|> standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
|> the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
|> never shout movie in a crowded firestation

Now, wait a minute.  It seems to me that you value Avg way too much.  There's
just no way that Palmeiro and Olerud were better than Fielder, and to compare him
to Hrbek and Sorrento is ridiculous: who would you rather have on your team
next year??
Same argument goes for Bagwell, Grace, and Kruk.
Even as far as W. Clark is concerned, he is certainly of comparable worth.
Clark hits over .300 (not by much) with under 20 hr's and Fielder hits in the
.250 range (maybe better: last year was an aberration) with 40 hr's
-Jonathan Katz
From: spira@panix.com (Greg "Sarcasm Is A Way Of Life" Spira)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Clark v Thomas
Date: 9 Jan 93 05:14:21 GMT
Organization: Boo!

In <4200371@hpcc01.corp.hp.com> boell@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Donald P Boell) writes:

>I may be looking through orange tinted glasses.  On the other hand, these
>are some of the factors that need to be looked at:

>o Clark plays 1/2 his games in a pitcher's park where the wind often keeps
>  balls in

>o For many years Clark's RBI total may not compare with Thomas because Clark
>  Had Jeffery Leonard and Chili Davis in the lineup with him.  Then, after
>  these guys were gone Clark had Mitchell and Williams.  You can't always
>  get tons of RBIs when you are in the middle of a sweet lineup.

Clark batted 3rd.  What the 4th and 5th place guys do doesn't affect your
RBI total.  Only the other way around.

Besides, one of the main reasons for Clar's high RBI total is because Brett
Butler was his leadoff man.  If you're looking for where Clark's RBIs were in
1992, you'll find them in Eric Karros' stats.  

>o Last season Clark had no protection at all in the lineup.  Clark is a 
>  very competitive, agressive player.  He'd rather put the ball in play
>  than leave the bat on his sholder.  As such his numbers for '92 are
>  worse than previous years. 

Not really.  He had a much better year than he did in 1990, when he had
a fine lineup around him.  

           OBP     SLG
'90        .357    .448
'92        .384    .476

He had all those RBIs and Runs in '90 because of who he had in front of him
and behind him, but he himself had a worse season.  


And protection seems to be mostly a myth.  Every time we look for it, it's
not there.  I doubt you can find a case where the protection theory seems
to work in the past 5 years.  And it certainly doesn't work here; Clark
had his worst season - 1990 - the year he had the best supporting cast.
Then, the next year, with Mitchell out much of the year, Clark rebounds
with an excellent season.

The only real thing that protection accomplishes is it limits intentional
walks.  George Bell was brought in to protect Frank Thomas, and nothing
happened.  Lots and lots of cases like that.  The real effect is really
quite small.

 I look for much better this year with Bonds
>  and Williams (assuming Bonds takes the pressure off of Williams who is
>  a bit of a head case).

>o I think Clark has the best left handed swing in the game today.

Well, I'm not sure what that means.

No one here thinks Clark isn't a very good player.  He is.  He has a real
good chance at the Hall of Fame, I would say.  

He's just not Frank Thomas offensively.

Greg 
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball