HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: drw3l@delmarva.evsc.Virginia.EDU (David Robert Walker)
Subject: Re: Mattingly
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 19:13:13 GMT

In article <1992Dec19.175158.4216@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu> akamholz@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Andrew E Kamholz) writes:
>I hereby take back everything I have said about Mattingly. I started off just
>trying to say that he was a good defensive player and certain idiots started
>going crazy with RISP and power and whatnot. 
>
>All I was trying to do was write something positive, since all most of you
>people seem capable of doing is putting down people who, by the way, have a
>lot more talent than any of you.

If you think we rag on the Yankees for playing Mattingly at first and
batting him third now, you should see what we would say if they tried
to play me at first and bat me third. Mattingly's talent compared to
me is meaningless; his performance compared to other first basemen in
the league is very meaningful.

All of these "crazy" stats are designed to give a better understanding
of performance, not to tear someone down. The numbers that I use are
scaled so that total predicted runs equals total actual runs; if some
player, like Mattingly or Fielder, gets taken down a notch a two, then
someone else, like Olerud or McGriff, gets moved up.

If I were trying to tell Mattingly how to play, that would be stupid.
If I evaluate his performance, and decide he is worse than six other
AL first basemen, and say why, my baseball playing talent is
irrelevant. Lets face it, George Bush and Bill Clinton have more
political talent than I will, but that will never stop me from bashing
them when they do something stupid, or from casting my vote against
them when necessary. 

Finally, most of the criticism is not really against Mattingly (except
as a critical analysis of his skills) but against the Yankee
management, for their failure to utilize their players in the best
possible manner. Players have certain skills, and there isn't much
they can do to change them. 

>Call me sentimental, but I will always believe that Mattingly is the best
>first-baseman. I REFUSE to answer any responses to this on this net. If you
>have a problem with what I say, send me mail and I'll tell you what I really
>think.

As a fan, you are entitled to think whatever you like. Management,
too, has the right to act on their beleifs. If they choose to beleive
that Mattingly is the best first baseman, and a great #3 hitter, and
act accordingly, than they should be prepared to pay the penalty: not
scoring as many runs as they might have otherwise, and not winning as
many games as they should. For an example, see Ripken, Cal, 1992.

Clay D.

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: jeffh@pisces.sps.mot.com  (Jeff Heilner)
Subject: Re: Wearing Out Pitchers
Organization: SPS
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 19:41:59 GMT

In article <18DEC199212135480@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu>  
doctor8@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu (Jason Abner Miller) writes:
> 	Case in point:  Mike Morgan
> 	Here was this brilliant young prospect, fresh out of high
> school, and into the Oakland A's organization.  In 1979, with the A's
> languishing (before Martin took over, I believe), the A's rushed him,
> and he went 0-3 with some ugly line numbers.  He started just about
> regularly in 1980, went 2-10 with even worse numbers, and was considered
> washed up.


Huh?

He wasn't 2-10 with the A's.

Mike Morgan spent 1980 in the minors.


- jrh


--
**************************************************************************
Jeff Heilner                      Motorola - Semiconductor Products Sector 
Software Engineer                 Network Support and Development
jeffh@pisces.sps.mot.com (NeXT)   Tempe, Arizona USA
**************** GO A'S! **** GO SHARKS! **** GO WARRIORS! ***************
   
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: aardvark@locus.com (Warren Usui)
Subject: Re: auto-intentional walk
Organization: Locus Computing Corporation, Los Angeles, California
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 20:35:49 GMT

In article <92344.164807RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu> <RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu> writes:
>i was wondering.  let's say you have a super-duper hitter.  how
>super-duper does he have to be to make it advantageous for the
>opposing team for them to automatically walk him, in all situations,
>rather than ever letting him take a cut at the ball?
>
>

This looks like a job for Wust simulations!  Here we have a few ratings:

Homers in Every at Bat             1148233
.900 Singles Hitter                 633946
.400 Hitter with 200 HR a season    624531
Walks 100% of the time              603014 <---- Your guy.
Cummulative best 1992               535694
.400 Hitter (140 singles 60 HR)     503924
Barry Bonds (Best in 1992)          489894
Raphael Belliard (Worst in 1992)    398046
Always strikes out                  314159

The Cummuative best of 1992 is a batter who in 500 at bats would have lead
the majors in every offensive category possible.  (500 at bats, 211 hits,
47 doubles, 15 triples, 44 home runs, 128 walks, 0 times grounded into double
plays, 0 strike-outs).

Based on the above numbers, it seems like there will never be a major league
player who will be good enough so that it would make sense to walk him 100%
of the time.

-- 
Warren Usui
aardvark@locus.com
uunet!lcc!aardvark

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Maddux v Liebrandt
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 18:23:18 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.174220.8935@cbnewse.cb.att.com> gotribe@cbnewse.cb.att.com (richard.g.barry) writes:
>The Braves aren't necessarily doomed, but they really haven't
>improved themselves much.  They lose Liebrandt (16 wins) and
>gain Maddux (20 wins).  

Y'know, it's this kind of thinking that makes the Cubs turn down
Maddux so they can get Jose Guzman.  The Braves didn't lose "16 wins",
they lost "16 wins with 4.29 Runs Support/9 inn."  They didn't
gain "20 wins", they gained "20 wins with 3.96 Runs Support."  You
put Maddux with the Braves offense, he stops being 20-11, he's more like
23-8.  (Similarly, Leibrandt would be 13-10 instead of 16-7 with Maddux's
support.)  

Jose Guzman won his 16 games with 5.46 average run support.  He'll be
lucky to win 12 with Maddux's support.  Whereas Maddux would've won 25
or 26 with Guzman's support.

This, of course, leaves aside the fact that Maddux pitched 75 innings
more than Liebrandt last year, which means the Braves have to rely less on 
the Mike Stantons of the world.

>Otherwise, their team is pretty much
>the same as last year (weak offensively at C, 1B, 2B, SS).

I don't know which Braves team you've been watching, but Blauser's the
second-best offensive shortstop in the National League.  The other thing
to note is that "weak" is a relative concept, and only two or three teams
didn't have weak catching in the NL last year.

>The team that is really improved is
>Cincinnati.  They're strong at virtually every offensive position,
>have a good starting staff and a great closer ('course, they still
>have to contend with Marge).  Put your money on the Reds in '93...

Really?  Who do they have at catcher?  Hal Morris is only marginally
better than Bream/Hunter.  Bill Doran's below average these days.  Paul
O'Neill was worse than below average the last four months of the season.
Kevin Mitchell's a question mark (though if he explodes, which he's
capable of, look out.  still, he's going to be 31.  i'd rather have
Keith Mitchell.)  And Sabo's coming back from a poor season and off-season
surgery.

And who do they have behind the 450 innings they'll get from Rijo and
Smiley?  Smoltz, Avery and Smith are all better than the Reds #3 pitcher.
The Reds gave 24 starts last year to pitchers with ERAs above 5.  That's
a pretty big hole to come back from, unless Pugh is for real...
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: snichols@adobe.com (Sherri Nichols)
Subject: Re: A new slant on Barry Bonds' uniform number
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:07:13 GMT

In article <14DEC92.08050831@wums.wustl.edu> peirick_j@wums.wustl.edu writes:
>I think that it is simply a practical matter that Barry Bonds cannot wear a
>retired number.  Picture this:  Barry Bonds wears number 24.  He then goes
>on to be a simply outstanding player for something like 15 years in SF.  He
>breaks club records, he breaks league records, he looks like a shoo-in for
>the Hall of Fame.  If this should happen, the Giants are placed in the un-
>comfortable position of having to retire a number _twice_.  This is quite
>unseemly, in my opinion.  By having Barry Bonds wear an unretired number the
>Giants are leaving open the possibility that they may someday retire _his_
>number.

The Yankees have already handled this: they retired the same number for
both Bill Dickey and Yogi Berra.  No problem.

Sherri Nichols
snichols@adobe.com



Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: franjion@spot.Colorado.EDU (John Franjione)
Subject: Re: Blue Jays-Gillick
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 07:04:47 GMT

spira@panix.com (Greg "Sarcasm Is A Way Of Life" Spira) writes:

>In <1992Dec17.030347.22009@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca> maynard@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Roger Maynard) writes:

>>In <1992Dec17.002229.28458@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> nlu@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu) writes:

>>>In article <1992Dec16.222334.13983@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca> maynard@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Roger Maynard) writes:

>>>Prove that Griffin is as important as a drive shaft.  If you can't, don't
>>>bother asking anyone to prove anything from now on.

>>Nope.  They won with Griffin.  If you think they could have won without him
>>then the onus is on you to prove it.  And you can't.  I can prove that they
>>won with him.  And if you can't prove that they could have won without Griffin
>>then you can't prove that Griffin was any less valuable to the team than
>>Alomar.

>And, of course, by that logic, we can't prove that the Jays would have
>won without the bat boy, the equipment manager, the trainer, the clubhouse
>attendant, the ticket sellers, the guys who deliver food to the lockerroom,
>the Toronto press, the fans, etc.

>Wait a minute.  You know, I got to watch a lot of Toronto games on tv this
>year.  And there is in fact no way to prove that they would have won the
>World Series if I had not watched those games, because in fact they did
>win the World Series with me watching.  Therefore, there is no way of
>proving that I was any less valuable to the team than Roberto Alomar{or
>Pat Gillick or Dave Winfield or Joe Carter!

Hah!  You can't even prove that baseball exists.  Sure, you watched
those games.  But how do you know you weren't dreaming?  And why was I
dreaming exactly the same dream?  Personally, I think it's spacen.
Ever since we started sending men into outer space, things have been a
little wacky.  One of these days, everything's going to be wiped out.
Of course, we'll never know, will we.

John Franjione
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: drraymon@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca (Darrell Raymond)
Subject: Car parts (was Re: Blue Jays-Gillick)
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 23:34:52 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.074126.7515@Princeton.EDU>, niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
> 
> Taking Alfredo Griffin off the roster *IS* the equivalent of removing
> the cigarette lighter, not the drive shaft or the carburetor.  

  Naah. Pat Tabler is the cigarette lighter.  Alfredo Griffin is the
spare tire.  

  Kelly Gruber is the purple sex light that keeps shorting out.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: gajarsky@pilot.njin.net (Bob Gajarsky - Hobokenite)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: My picks, AL/NL East
Date: 18 Dec 92 18:58:32 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Somewhere in Hoboken

dae@cbnews.cb.att.com (david.a.elliott) writes:
{stuff deleted}

>Destrade played in the Yankee organization for a while, and got stuck behind
>Mattingly.  He has never had a chance to prove himself in the majors.  On
>the other hand, he has no major league track record (unlike Fielder did
>before he went to Japan), and I don't remember him putting up anywhere near
>these numbers when he was in Columbus.  He's no more of a sure thing than
>Jeff Conine is.

the funny thing is, people claim that cecil fielder couldn't hit 
 before he went to japan.  i'd bet that most people on this newsgroup
 know that he put up very good minor league numbers, and the jays
 never stuck him straight at first - and when he played, part time,
 he put up numbers comparable to those he has reached at detroit.

i remember (since i invest in baseball cards) saying that mcgriff
 would be the one stuck behind fielder, since fielder would hit
 more home runs, and the jays would trade mcgriff, not fielder.
 oops.  i was wrong.  somewhat.

- bob gaj
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: tedward@cs.cornell.edu (Edward [Ted] Fischer)
Subject: Re: Blue Jays-Gillick
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 21:22:37 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.210013.10713@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca> maynard@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Roger Maynard) writes:
>
>Can you prove to me that in '92 the Jays would have won without Griffin?
>(or Gaston or any other member of the team).

No, I can't prove to you that the Jays would have won with Larkin
instead of Griffin.  For that matter, I doubt I can prove *anything*
to your satisfaction.

>No you can't and until you can
>prove it you cannot tell me that any member of the team was more important
>than any other if importance is defined as being necessary to winning the WS. 

Why bother discussing baseball at all, then?  We know the Blue Jays
won.  We know every player who played an inning on the team.  In your
(limited) world, what else matters?

>What is really stupid and of little interest is to claim that any manager
>was "better" than Gaston in '92.  We know that the team that employed Gaston
>won.  We will never know whether or not that team would have won with any
>other manager and any speculation on this issue is purely idle.

Then leave us to our idle discussion, because you have nothing to
contribute.  Honestly.  Given what you have stated above, the *only*
thing that matters to you is whether or not a player/manager was on
the team that won the World Series (or maybe winning a division is
enough to receive notice).  Why not just ^K through this, and let
us continue our meaningless, childish arguments?

>>Cito the most successful manager in 1992?  Of course.  Was he the
>>best?  Not by any normal definition of "best".  (I know.  You prefer
>>your own dictionary, in which "best" and "most successful" are
>>synonyms.  Why don't you just accept that the rest of the world
>>defines the terms differently?)
>
>What you consider the "best" is meaningless.  The fact that so many argue 
>about just what the "best" is should be your first clue.  The fact that
>nobody argues about who the "most successful" is should be your second.

I agree with *this* entirely.  Best != Most Successful.  Something
which you have yet to understand.

-Valentine
From: chuq@Apple.COM (Eeyore's Evil Twin)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Giants and Bonds - a $43 million mistake?
Date: 12 Dec 92 22:11:09 GMT
Organization: Pooh Corner Country Club -- A Planned Community


>>Don't be too disappointed -- the Giants desparately need outfielders too.
>>Even with Barry Bonds, their outfield is pretty pathetic.

>The Giants don't need outfielders nearly as badly as they need a couple
>of starting pitchers.

You know, it's funny (at least to me). Magowan was on KNBR this week being
interviewed, and he noted that of the six GM candidates he interviewed, all
six said the Giants #1 need was a power-hitting, left-handed hitting
outfielder that could protect Will Clark. 

I guess none of them know what they're talking about, right?

(I posted in this thread earlier my feelings about this. I still fail to see
why a starting rotation based on Brantley, Burkett and Black, with Beck and
Swift kicking tail in the bullpen, is a disaster if you have a team that
gets them three or four runs a game instead of one or two)

-- 
            Chuq "IMHO" Von Rospach, ESD Support & Training (DAL/AUX)
                      Member, SFWA =+= Editor, OtherRealms
                chuq@apple.com | GEnie: MAC.BIGOT | ALink:CHUQ 

                       Sterling Holloway: We'll miss you.
From: clgs11@vaxa.strath.ac.uk
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Go Kelly Go
Date: 10 Dec 92 14:35:09 GMT
Organization: Strathclyde University VAX Cluster

In article <Bz09Ar.BsI@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, umeitzen@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Steven Eitzen) writes:
> In <1992Dec03.000801.10002@r-node.gts.org> shadow@r-node.gts.org (Jay Chu) writes:
> 
>>>Pleeeeeease let Coles play 3rd base.  PLEEEEEEASE!
>>>
>>>If you haven't figured it out by now, I am president of the "Can't Get Rid of
>>>Kelly Gruber?  Kill Him" fan club.
> 
>>How can I join?
> 

You guys make me sick.....All you are saying is " lets get rid of GREAT defense

and to hell with who we replace it with. I'd like to wish Kelly Gruber all the

best with his new club and you guys can go to hell !!!!!!!!


-: In The End :-

Anton.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: dhirmes@hamp.hampshire.edu
Subject: morris/Tartabull/ KC rejects idocy?
Organization: Hampshire College
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 05:25:42 GMT

I want to comment on this much talked about Tartabull/Morris/ jefferies and
Gordon trade. From the Yankee standpoint, it seems like a ludicrous deal. Why
would they want Morris, when they have just bolstered their pitching staff with
Abbott et al? Also, they clearly have offensive problems that need to be
adressed, and trading one of the most potent offensive forces in the game for a
mediocre pitcher who is even more expensive than Tartabull doesn't seem to make
sense. I haven't read a thing about it in the papers, just on this net. Did
someone make this up or what?

Jon LeJon Levy
Hampshire college

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: arrow@netcom.com (Les Arrow)
Subject: Re: Holding action in RF for O's
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 20:24:43 GMT

In article <853@blue.cis.pitt.edu> genetic+@pitt.edu (Dr. Dave) writes:
>Thus spake drw3l@delmarva.evsc.Virginia.EDU (David Robert Walker):
>
>>So this is a team with conservative projections of .260 at C, .255 1b,
>>.215 2b, .250 ss, .265 3b, .250 lf, .250 cf, .250 rf, .250 dh. An
>>extremely balanced lineup that averages a .250 eqa; that is over 800
>>runs. That is one excellent lineup. 
>
>...until you realize that Johnny Oates is making out the lineup card, 
>along the following lines:
>
>	LF	Anderson
>	2B	Reynolds (for his "bat control")
>	SS	Ripken	 (because of Who He Is)
>	CF	Devereaux
>	1B	G. Davis
>	DH	Milligan ("He just needs to swing away a bit more...")
>	RF	C. Martinez
>	3B	Gomez
>	C	Hoiles	 ("I don't care *how* well he hits, he's a *catcher*")
>
>-- 
>       David Tate        |"Out of the dugout endlessly swinging,
> dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu | Out of the manager's throat, the sound fundamentals,
> Prof. of Story Problems | Out of the six-month season..."            
> Member ORSA, TIMS, SABR | 	Walt "Lefty" Whitman

How about Mercedes? Is there any word about him starting out there?

--Les
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: snichols@adobe.com (Sherri Nichols)
Subject: Re: Brian Dorsett (was Re: Who are these new Pirates ?)
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:01:42 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.001045.26048@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu> akamholz@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Andrew E Kamholz) writes:
>I saw Dorsett when he was still with the Yanks. I don't thnk he could
>possibly be 31.

Multiple references put Dorsett's birth date at 4/9/61.  I wouldn't think
there would be any incentive for Dorsett to lie about his age and pretend
to be *older* than he really is.

Sherri Nichols
snichols@adobe.com



Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Statheads and park effects
Date: 21 Dec 92 04:31:07 GMT
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Dec21.033322.20161@cs.cornell.edu> tedward@cs.cornell.edu (Edward [Ted] Fischer) writes:
>Yah.  Egg on my face!  ALWAYS in the past was Swindell homer-prone.
>In 1990 and 1991, he allowed a total of 48 HR in 452 IP.  One year
>(1987), he allowed 18 HR in only 102 IP!
>
>Last year Swindell allowed only 14 HR in 213 IP, the best HR/IP ratio
>of his career.  Nothing else really changed.  He wasn't suddenly
>striking out more batters or allowing fewer hits.  He didn't walk more
>or fewer guys.  He simply cut down on those souvenirs.
>
>I was betting on 30 HR...  Boy was I wrong!  (Though did I really
>predict a mid-4s ERA?  Seems a bit extreme, considering the move to a
>no-DH league.)

You were probably basing it on his 5.21 ERA on the road in 1991.

At any rate, if you're predicting 30 HR, a mid-4 ERA is not unreasonable--
why does it matter whether it's a team of eight or nine hitters hitting
those home runs?
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: jpalmer@uwovax.uwo.ca (The Econoclast)
Subject: Re: What is $43.75m worth?
Organization: University of Western Ont, London
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 14:38:18 GMT

In article <6HKVBH6H@cc.swarthmore.edu>, behrens@cc.swarthmore.edu (Eric Behrens) writes:
> In article <1992Dec15.154024.1@uwovax.uwo.ca>, jpalmer@uwovax.uwo.ca (The
> Econoclast) writes:
>> 
>> 	Last week I read that even though Barry Bonds is to receive
>> $43.75m over six years, most of it comes in the later years of his
>> contract. He is to receive:
>> 
>> 1992 (signing bonus)	2.5
>> 1993			4.0
>> 1994			4.75
>> 1995			7.75
>> 1996			8.0
>> 1997			8.25
>> 1998			8.5
> 
> I don't have the economics background that you do, John, but it seems to me
> that this arrangement leaves the Giants with an additional option of
> getting two good cheap years out of Bonds and then trading him to another
> team if the investment hasn't helped them much.  (Of course, by 1995, 8
> million may look like an absolute steal, especially if he has another two
> top-caliber years.)

	As you correctly identify, Eric, at the end of the 1994
season, the Giants will be faced with paying Bonds an average of more
than $8m/yr for four years. 

	At that point, however, the only reason someone
might take him in trade would be if they expect him to bring in _more_
than that amount in revenues. The Giants cannot just use him during
the cheap years and then unload his salary unless they can find
someone willing to pay that salary. And "...if the investment hasn't
helped them much," they may not find any takers [see Gruber, 
Toronto-California trade, 1992, wherein Toronto gave Calif $1m 
to help cover Gruber's high salary].


-- 
  Regards,

  John Palmer    London, Ontario       Voice: (519) 661-3533     FAX: 661-3666
  reply to jpalmer@uwovax.uwo.ca       The Economics Institute for Journalists
  ============================================================================
  The New Economics: Overlapping Generalizations & Rationalized Expectorations
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball