HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Expos Clinch! Wallach to Dodgers
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 00:05:57 GMT

In article <C01M4x.582@news.cso.uiuc.edu> hbrooks@uiatma.atmos.uiuc.edu (Harold_Brooks) writes:
>In article <1992Dec29.203145.771@sni.ca> dave@snitor.sni.ca (Dave Till) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec25.193739.29847@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>>>Wallach is a 10-and-5 player, which means he had to agree to the
>>>trade, I think...which shows you what a classy person he is...since
>>>the Expos chances in the near future are probably better than the
>>>Dodgers chances.   Wallach allowed the Expos to do the right thing
>>>for the Expos, even though it may not have been the absolute best
>>>thing for Tim Wallach.
>
>Just like when he allowed the Expos to move him to first to let 
>Barberie play without complaining or when he didn't make them pay
>him to not protect him in the draft.  Oops, he did both of those.

Wallach complained about the move to first base publically only when
the move was initially made by Runnells, and then said nothing more
about it.   He just let it be known, what because universally known
two months later, that Runnells was not ready to manage a major league
team.

So he agreed to waive his right to be protected in the
expansion draft for a small fee or perhaps for the guarenteed purchase
of his Montreal home...he was giving up something...he doesn't have
to give up something for nothing.  He didn't demand anything
outrageous...Duquette wasn't complaining that Wallach was making
outrageous demands.

Wallach is a classy guy...Expo fans aren't going to begin dumping
on him just because his best years are behind him.



Gerald
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: hbrooks@uiatma.atmos.uiuc.edu (Harold_Brooks)
Subject: Re: Expos Clinch! Wallach to Dodgers
Organization: NSSL
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 22:50:56 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.203145.771@sni.ca> dave@snitor.sni.ca (Dave Till) writes:
>In article <1992Dec25.193739.29847@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>>Wallach is a 10-and-5 player, which means he had to agree to the
>>trade, I think...which shows you what a classy person he is...since
>>the Expos chances in the near future are probably better than the
>>Dodgers chances.   Wallach allowed the Expos to do the right thing
>>for the Expos, even though it may not have been the absolute best
>>thing for Tim Wallach.

Just like when he allowed the Expos to move him to first to let 
Barberie play without complaining or when he didn't make them pay
him to not protect him in the draft.  Oops, he did both of those.
>
>It was a great deal for the Expos, just as the Gruber deal was a great
>one for the Jays.  Is there something in the water out on the west coast
>that causes the teams out there to overvalue aging third-basemen?
>Maybe it's a part of the free-trade deal:  Canada gives up its overvalued
>third-sackers as well as most of its manufacturing :-).

The other parallel is frightening.  Take a popular veteran with a repu-
tation as a great defensive player who has been at or near the bottom 
offensively at his position for the last couple of years.  Find a team 
that was way below average offensively at that position the previous 
year.  Trade your offensive out-machine to that team, even though you
don't have an player with a lot of major league experience at his 
position to replace him with.  A stat-head delight!  (Since Roger 
Maynard has assured us we won't be around on the net much longer,
we have to get our jollies now.)  It's hard to believe that a team
could pull off that move once, but, with Andres Galarraga and Tim
Wallach, the Expos have done it twice in two years.  I'm impressed.

Harold
-- 
Harold Brooks                    hbrooks@uiatma.atmos.uiuc.edu
National Severe Storms Laboratory (Norman, OK)
"Better to trade a player a year too early than a year too late."
--Branch Rickey
From: demers@cs.ucsd.edu (David DeMers)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Sammy Sosa                         X
Date: 22 Dec 92 16:16:33 GMT
Organization: =CSE Dept., U.C. San Diego

In article <1992Dec22.154339.6458@cc.umontreal.ca> iacurtop@ERE.UMontreal.CA (Iacurto Paul) writes:

>Need Sammmy Sosa's numbers for the 92 season

Even better, here are his 1993 numbers :-)
(from STATS; I predict SBs are on the high side - s/b about 24)

>BA	.241
>HR	14
>RBI	58
>SB	30
>E	?

-- 
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
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Blue Jays-Gillick
From: grabiner@math.harvard.edu (David Grabiner)
Date: 22 Dec 92 13:07:32 EST
Organization: Harvard University Dept. of Mathematics
In-reply-to: genetic+@pitt.edu's message of 21 Dec 92 18:41:48 GMT

In article <1040@blue.cis.pitt.edu>, Dr. Dave writes:

>>Who was it that stated that pitching is 44% of baseball
>>(with offense 44%, and defense making up the rest)?

> Whoever it was was being silly, since offense has to be 50% of baseball, by
> sheer symmetry.  Scoring runs and preventing them are equally important to
> winning.

It was Pete Palmer who concluded that pitching was 44% of baseball, and
he did start with the premise that offense and defense were each half of
the ghame.  Since 12% of runs are unearned, 12% of defense is not
pitching, but 88% is, and that gives the 44% figure.

(I don't quite agree with these numbers; fielding can have a larger
effect on earned runs than on unearned runs.  On the other hand,
unearned runs are partly the pitcher's responsibility as well.)

--
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: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Offense, Defense, and the Transmutation of Egalitarian Society
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 09:09:10 GMT

In article <Dec.24.17.42.51.1992.22607@pilot.njin.net> gajarsky@pilot.njin.net (Bob Gajarsky - Hobokenite) writes:
>well, in yor home run contest...

>let's say the fences are 50 feet away from home plate.  so devon and
> cecil have roughly the same chance to hit it out.  i'd say
> defense would be VASTLY more important than offense, since there'd
> be almost a 100% chance of hitting it out.

Oh yeah?  What about Billy "Nepotism" Ripken?

>but this is getting way off the topic.  

On r.s.b?  No way!

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Is it too early to start making predictions for 1993?
niepornt@phoenix.    | Probably, but that never stopped me before.
   princeton.edu     | ALE: Baltimore ALW: Chicago NLE: Montreal NLW: Atlanta
Baltimore Orioles 93 | AL MVP: Cal Ripken  AL Cy Young: Mike Mussina
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: vbdiep@iastate.edu (Vinh Diep)
Subject: 1993 NEW YOthe Yankees. I heard that they just aquired Wade Boggs and 
	I would like someone (you do not have to be a Yankees fan) to list 
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 07:03:10 GMT


						Vinh Diep
From: demers@cs.ucsd.edu (David DeMers)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: EXPOS :TEAM TO BEAT IN THE EAST
Date: 21 Dec 92 18:35:15 GMT
Organization: CSE Dept., UC San Diego


In article <1992Dec21.142801.6669@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, drw3l@delmarva.evsc.Virginia.EDU (David Robert Walker) writes:

|> >Colbrunn should be adequate, though his plate discipline is
|> >poor.  He hits the ball pretty often pretty hard, which is
|> >nice to have around as a 1B hitting about 7th in the lineup.
|> > 
|> Why are so many people excited about Colbrunn this year? He is only
|> 23, so I understand that, but he only has one really good hitting year
|> in the minors, last year at Indianapolis, and that was only 220 PA. He
|> may be good enough to play this year, but I wouldn't want to bet on it.

I don't know if anyone is all that excited about him, but he should
be adequate - i.e. better than Todd Benzinger.  I'd expect about
a 700 OPS.  If he can learn to take a walk then I'd be a lot happier
with him, but he does have medium power.  If he's expected to be
a slugger in the #4 or #5 slots, he will be disappointing.
But bat him 6th or 7th & he'll be ok.  Signing McGwire would be
a big improvement :-)

-- 
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
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: poutsmaj@mace.cc.purdue.edu (unknown)
Subject: Re: Old-fashioned hitters (was Best Playes (sic) of All Times)
Organization: Purdue University
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 15:05:24 GMT

In article <1h7l5mINNbs5@meaddata.meaddata.com> dougr@meaddata.com (Doug Ritter) writes:
>>	What are they doing the rest of the time?  Probably playing
>>basketball.  You don't need organization, you don't need a bunch of
>>neighborhood kids, if you want to go out in the driveway to shoot some
>>hoops.  You can do it all by yourself.  But if you're a kid in America
>>today, you're not going to be able to find enough people to go out and
>>play baseball every day, even if you want to, and even if you have
>>someplace to play.
>
>Whoa, wait a minute!  When I was a kid, 3-on-3 baseball was the rule and
>*not* the exception!  When we had 9 guys on both sides, it seemed like
>half the free world was there.
>
>We even played 2-on-2 sometimes.  It can be done, trust me!
>
>Maybe kids today just aren't imaginitive enough.  All we needed was a
>ball, a bat, a dead-end street and 6 people.
>
>No dibs on windows, though.
>

I used to play 1 on 1 with my neighbor all the time.  All we needed was 
a bat, a tennis ball and a wall to throw against.  Granted, we spent a lot of
time chasing hits, but we had fun.

I would think that the introduction of wiffle ball would make 1 on 1 even
more popular.  When we played, anything that got by the pitcher was a hit.

paul

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: maynard@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Roger Maynard)
Subject: Re: Expos Clinch! Wallach to Dodgers
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Laurentian University, Sudbury, ON
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 21:50:16 GMT

In <kbanaian.137.0@bernard.pitzer.claremont.edu> kbanaian@bernard.pitzer.claremont.edu (King Banaian) writes:

>In article <1993Jan3.193620.27863@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca> maynard@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Roger Maynard) writes:

>>If you are assessing performance after the fact then the 97%
>>is a combination of talent + intangibles.  Can you separate the two?
>>No.  
>I was with you up to here, but...

>>As for predicting performance, well, you can't seriously mean that
>>you can predict performance at a 97% accuracy rate.

>No, David never said that.  He said *talent* was 97% of the game, not 
>stats.  No stathead worthy of the name would ever say stats could exactly 
>describe talent.

Well if the stats measure performance and performance is equal to 
talent + intangibles and talent is = 97% of performance then any
prediction based on performance must be 97% accurate - after discounting
the intangibles.

>>If you really think
>>that your methods are more accurate than those of the common herd then
>>why don't you hop on down to Vegas and get rich betting on baseball?  If
>>you are concerned about sample size - bet on every game.  

>1.  Well, for one thing I have a finite bank account (alas!)

Team up with some other SDCN's.

>2.  I must bet $6 to make $5 on even money propositions, so I have to hit 
>over 55%, not 50%.

Is 55% out of the question?  are you saying that statistical analysis gives
you no better than 5% more accuracy than a coin toss?

>3.  Betting is an efficient market:  the statistical realities are already 
>in the odds.  Your statement:

>>Odds are calculated
>>according to how bookies predict people will bet - not on the final score.

>... is baloney.  The bookie adjusts the odds so that an even amount of money 

Yes, the bookie adjusts the odds after he receives some action - but his
original posting is calculated to attract equal interest.  In other words
the bookie posts his odds according to how he predicts people will bet.

>>Surely your scientific methods would give you the advantage over those
>>who bet by gut feelings?  

>Not at all.  The gut bettors are not those who drive the action (were it so, 
>I could make tons of money betting each week against the Cowboys, who have a 
>lot of rich fans;  same goes for the Niners).  When I lay a million on the 
>Jays, the odds drop on them, going up on the Braves, and some other sharpie 
>bets on them, since they are now a better bet.  (I.e., the price of betting 
>on them has fallen.)

Sure but the odds that you have bet on haven't changed.  They change only
for subsequent bettors.

It seems to me that you are admitting that your methods of prediction are
less than 5% more accurate than a coin toss...

If that is the case - why do you bother making predictions at all?????

rm

-- 
Roger Maynard
maynard@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: maynard@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Roger Maynard)
Subject: Re: Sierra with A's: 5 yrs/$30MM
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Laurentian University, Sudbury, ON
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 19:51:05 GMT

In <1993Jan3.091608.3538@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:

>Obviously, Canseco isn't Ruth or Mantle, but the point still stands.
>Who cares what percent he's giving?  What matters is what he's giving.

The FANS and other players I would have to think.  If a player is making 
4 or 5 big ones a year and he is not putting out then I as a FAN would be
damned upset.  And if I was another player making 3 or 4 hundred thou I
would be livid.

rm 
 
-- 
Roger Maynard
maynard@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: gajarsky@pilot.njin.net (Bob Gajarsky - Hobokenite)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: expos, wallach, predicting.
Date: 3 Jan 93 22:17:45 GMT
Organization: Somewhere in Hoboken


Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Expos Clinch! Wallach to Dodgers

maynard@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Roger Maynard) writes:
i'll say it again.

i DO make money on baseball players because of my ability to
 predit the future.

and it's not just me.  most of the frequent posters on here do the same
 thing as i, they just don't make money off it.

making money off of baseball players is pathetically easy, since most
 people out there are amazed when things happen that are brutally
 obvious. - bob gaj

>In <1993Jan3.091527.3394@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: My picks, AL/NL East
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 06:55:41 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.023648.35840@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> cej0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (CHARLES EDWARD JAMES) writes:
>In article <1026@blue.cis.pitt.edu>, genetic+@pitt.edu (Dr. Dave) writes:
>>Thus spake cej0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (CHARLES EDWARD JAMES):
>(much deleted)

>1.  Alomar was injured early in the year. (may, I think, while making a putout
>at home.  McGwire tried to run him over.  Short summary: Mcgwire never touched
>the plate, and Alomar's shoulder got screwed up.)  If he'd been healthy all
>year he would have had another year like '89.  This year he will bat over .300
>and will be stellar on D again.

>2.  (I know I'll get it for this one.)  I think that Alomar could be compared
>to one of my all time favorite players, Johnny Bench.  Bench is undoubtly one
>of the best catchers ever, but before the end of his career I think that
>Alomar will be able to be mentioned in the same sentence with Bench.

Defensively, maybe.  Though I have serious doubts whether defensive
reputation has any relation to defense, especially at catcher.

But offensively?  No way.  Sure, he's had injury problems.  (Though, of
course, people who are fragile tend to remain fragile throughout their career.)

He *also* hasn't ever had any great seasons with the bat.  He had one
average season and two really bad ones in his career.  What gives you
reason to think he's suddenly going to start hitting?

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Is it too early to start making predictions for 1993?
niepornt@phoenix.    | Probably, but that never stopped me before.
   princeton.edu     | ALE: Baltimore ALW: Chicago NLE: Montreal NLW: Atlanta
Baltimore Orioles 93 | AL MVP: Cal Ripken  AL Cy Young: Mike Mussina
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: vbdiep@iastate.edu (Vinh Diep)
Subject: New York Yankees
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 07:14:51 GMT


	I need someone to list all the New York Yankees players, including
the new aquisitions. Thank you very much.
	I can't wait for the 1993 baseball season to start. It's cold here
in Ames, Iowa.
	Bye now and Happy New Year.

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: kmews@minnie.imd.nrc.ca
Subject: Re: Expo Fans
Organization: NRC-Institute for Marine Dynamics
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 16:25:45 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.222108.2404@odin.corp.sgi.com>, luigi@bullpen.csd.sgi.com (Randy Palermo) writes:
> Expo fans: With the departure of Tim Wallach where does Greg Colbrunn fit
> in the plans for '93? 

First base.

KM
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: djcoll04@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: EXPOS :TEAM TO BEAT IN THE EAST
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 08:33:08 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

Hello.  This is my first time on the network and I am a major Expos fan.  I
attended ten games last year, including the two 17 inning marathons in St.
Louis and Chicago.  Hey, I've got credentials!!!!

Anyway, Matt Stairs will not be at third base.  Rather, Sean Berry will likely
take that position.  He showed some offensive promise in his limited late
season play.  Interestingly, his and Tim Spehr's (catcher) addition to the team will give
will give them two recent KC Royal minor leaguers in their infield.

Finally, as optimistic as I am about the coming season for Montreal, I would
still have to pick the Mets to win it.  Their injury problems, lack of
chemistry, and infield clumsiness will be largely eliminated by the '93 season, 
thus suggesting that their strong, rehabilitated pitching staff may lead the
way to the pennant.  And, except for Calderon, the Expos were largely
injury-free in '92, especially on the pitching end.  They would be extremely
lucky if such good fortune were to continue in '93.  The result will likely be
somewhere the '92 luck and the '91 maliase.
                                              
Picks:  Jays, ChiSox, Mets, Reds
                                                       Patrcik J. Tierney
From: gajarsky@pilot.njin.net (Bob Gajarsky - Hobokenite)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Dramatic Improvements...Re: Cordero
Date: 23 Dec 92 20:28:26 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Somewhere in Hoboken

players who make dramatic improvements tend to be one of two things:

1) a player who is going from 19 to 20, 20 to 21, etc. where the
 natural body fills out, and they gain power.

2) a player who does a large amount of off-season weightlifting, and
 ages from 24-25, 25-26, etc.

robin yount hit both of those.

those are both witnessed without daily watching the player - off
 season conditioning programs are usually reported on quite often,
 when they happen.

- bob gaj
From: spira@panix.com (Greg "Sarcasm Is A Way Of Life" Spira)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Expos Clinch! Wallach to Dodgers
Date: 26 Dec 92 17:23:05 GMT
Organization: Boo!

In <1992Dec26.041708.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> djcoll04@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:

>> 
>> DeShields was on the way up, at age 23.  Wallach is definitely on the way
>> down, at age 35.  Besides, although the BAs are similar, DeShields' '91 was
>> leaps and bounds ahead of Wallach's '92 (or '91, for that matter).
>> 
>> DeShields posted a .347 OBP in his bad year, which Wallach, at this point,
>> can only dream about, for example.  (Besides, DeShields is a second baseman,
>> so not as much offense is expected of him aay.
>> GO CALIF
>Hey,, I'm not saying that Wallach will necessarily rise from the ashes. While
>he had a worse OBP than Deshields in teir off years, he didn't approach 
>Deshields league leading strikeout total.

I'm not sure why you care about strikeouts, especially for a leadoff
hitter.  They're basically irrelevant.  Now, DeShields might hit better
if he could cut down on his strikeouts, but the fact that he struck out
all those times instead of popping out or grounding into double plays
doesn't make his offense any worse.

>Remember, Expos fans, that they told us that Tim Raines was washed up.  He 
>has played consistent ball since the trade while Calderon was on the bench
>and Barry Jones was a wash.

Who the heck is they, and why did they tell you that Tim Raines was washed
up when he was traded?  Raines' last season with Montreal was better than all
but Wallach's best one or two seasons.   He had a .379 OBP, for goodness
sake, and a .395 OBP the year before that.  Wallach has averaged a .294
OBP the last 2 years!

>Doesn't anyone out there believe in the importance of a good defense and a
>veteran, experienced presence in that defense?  

No.  I care about how much the player contributes to his team.  And the
replacements the Expos have in mind for Wallach and Owen (Frank Bolick
and Sean Berry at third, Cordero at short) will create more offense and
play better defense.  Who cares that they're not experienced?  The
Expos will succeed precisely because they play their talent and
let over-the-hill players exit.  The Expos might have won last year if
Tim Wallach hadn't been around to drag the team down.

Greg 
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: dkeisen@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dave Eisen)
Subject: Re: Sierra with A's: 5 yrs/$30MM
Organization: Sequoia Peripherals, Inc.
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 93 00:46:52 GMT

In article <1993Jan3.195105.28444@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca> maynard@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Roger Maynard) writes:
>In <1993Jan3.091608.3538@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>
>>Obviously, Canseco isn't Ruth or Mantle, but the point still stands.
>>Who cares what percent he's giving?  What matters is what he's giving.
>
>The FANS and other players I would have to think.  If a player is making 
>4 or 5 big ones a year and he is not putting out then I as a FAN would be
>damned upset.  And if I was another player making 3 or 4 hundred thou I
>would be livid.

I guess you can be envious if you want to be, Roger. I am almost 
certain that there are people in your chosen profession  who are 
talented enough to do better work than you do while putting in half 
the effort. Probably loads of them. If you want to spend your life 
being irritated at people who don't appear to give their all, go right 
ahead. Me? I'd rather let the lucky few enjoy their successes while
I go about living my life the way I'm happiest. I don't have the 
energy for that kind of pettiness and envy.

Although, you may have a point. My impression of pro athletes is
that they have *plenty* of energy to devote to pettiness and envy.



-- 
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