HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gaf5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (Gail A. Fullman)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Steve Howe
Date: 23 Nov 92 20:08:29 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University


>> Finally, it is real annoying to see baseball give Howe his 8th chance, when
>> Pete Rose is still ineligible for the hall of fame. The logic of baseball
>> always evades me.
>> --Les
>
>Ah, finally a point I agree with you about. Rose has been railroaded
>by a bunch of assholes, Mr. Vincent being the biggest of the bunch.
>They never claimed they used logic to come to their conclusion.
>
Logic and baseball: aren't these mutually exclusive?  I mean, isn't there
something in their anti-monopoly gig that specifically excludes logic?
[Sarcasm abounds].
-- 

------------------------
|   Gail A. Fullman    |
|   Manager - ADMO     |
|   Ext. 83113         |
------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: nlu@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu)
Subject: Re: The New Yuck Mets: A Look Ahead
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 20:20:23 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.185947.17662@asd.com> scott@asd.com (Scott Barman) writes:

>Forget about Howard Johnson, he's not a shortstop and I wasn't
>considering him in this.  I was thinking about Schofield, Elster, and
>Raphael Santana before that!

Why?  Wasn't it shown that Johnson in fact has *better* range at SS than he
does at 3B, for some reason?

>The big difference between Magadan and Murray are in the power numbers.
>Say all you want about getting on base, which is what Magadan can do,
>but you need someone to drive them in.  Eddie Murray was obtained for
>that purpose.  I don't have the numbers in front of me but I am sure he
>had 20+ home runs and 80+ RBIs.  This is what the Mets wanted for the #3
>spot in the line up and this is what Murray gave them that Magadan could
>not. 

But couldn't Johnson fill that role?  Boston?  What the Mets needed badly is
someone to get on base; getting Eddie Murray wasn't going to help them in that
regard.
>
>Before we go on, I don't get hung up about money.  I know most of these
>guys make in a year more than I might make in a life time.  That's OK
>because I don't care.  What I care about is if they can play and do the
>job they are asked to do.  Eddie Murray did his job and I have no
>problems with the $7 million they are paying him for two years.

But Murray did *not* do his job.  His slugging is just about average for a
first baseman, and his on-base is below average.  He's about average, overall,
but not someone you'd want to bump Magadan for.
>
>Finish it: Because he's a big name and they needed the p.r. after losing
>Darryl Strawberry and because there were some negative things coming out
>about the alleged (non-)negotiations.  Coleman was supposed to fill a
>couple of needs: lead off hitter, outfielder, and big name to replace
>Strawberry.  So far, he is only a name.

Just as most people on the net predicted.
>
>Had he not been hurt would it have been a bad deal?  I don't know.  I
>would speculate he would not have lived up to his billing, but I do not
>think he would have been as bad.  Then again what did they lose?  Money? 
>This was a free agent signing, not a trade.

They lost a first round pick, you know...

===============================================================================
GO CALIFORNIA ANGELS!
===============================================================================
Nelson Lu (claudius@leland.stanford.edu)
Date: Monday, 16 Nov 1992 12:32:41 EST
From: <RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: would i were the boss.
Distribution: na
 <16NOV199211163543@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu>

charlie hayes, regardless of what the yankees say, is an absolutely
average defensive third baseman.  he was absolutely average before this
year (the yankees said they were getting a great defensive whiz) and
he was absolutely average this year (the yankees think he's graig nettles,
after having found the fountain of youth).

besides that, he just plain blows, hittingwise.  this was clearly his
best season; he's probably not going to get better, and he's probably
going to revert to his normal form (even worse than this pitiful year).

meulens is young.  meulens may improve.  meulens may become very good.
hayes will never.  i'd rather give meulens a shot than let some schmuck
who hits like don robinson play.

the other thing i'd like to take part to in this jason dude's post is
that you included the text from my message saying i would protect maas,
then asked, "why protect maas? blah blah blah blah blah?" and did NOT
include the text from my message saying i would protect him to trade
him.  duh.

maas and o'niell have trade value, not because they are good, but because
there are idiot gms who think they're good.  the two of them, plus hayes,
if he's not taken, may be able to land a good player and a few prospects.

bob vesterman.


Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: dave@snitor.sni.ca (Dave Till)
Subject: Re: Steve Howe
Organization: Siemens Nixdorf, Sietec Open Systems, Toronto, Canada
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 21:56:38 GMT

I wrote:
>>I, on the other hand, think that Steve Howe should be allowed to pitch as long
>>as he is not in prison.  If a player's (alleged) crime is not directly
>>related to baseball, punishing the player implies that baseball is above
>>the law.  Which it isn't.

To which, in article <ataylor.722283836@uclagsm>,
ataylor@agsm.ucla.edu (Al Taylor) responds:
>Ahhh, but here is the problem. It does relate to baseball because MLB has 
>a anti-drug policy (correct?). So the problems are, if they have this policy
>should they inforce it? If not whats the point? And what does that tell
>the fans who they are selling this policy too?

My point is this:  why should major league baseball have an anti-drug policy?
Why should baseball do the courts' job (or the legislators', or the police's)?

--Dave "doesn't take drugs, because I'm 'Mr. Side Effects'" Till
  e-mail address:  dave@silver.sni.ca or dave@snitor.uucp
  "A virus is system software with no political power." -- Tom Wolfe (modified)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: duxbury@fraser.sfu.ca (Nancy Ann Duxbury)
Subject: Re: does anybody know...
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 18:29:17 GMT


   The question is whether the the catcher must be behind home plate
before the ball is put into play (that's paraphrasing it
somewhat...the articles are too long to quote...laziness on my part
:-).)

   Yes...the catcher must not only be behind the plate when the
pitcher delivers the ball; HE MUST ALSO BE IN THE CATCHER'S BOX WHEN
THE PITCHER STARTS HIS DELIVERY. Otherwise, he commits what is known
as a "catcher's balk". You'll almost never see it at the Major League
level, and you'll rarely see it even at the amateur level.

   The rule is generally intended to avoid giving the catcher an
unfair advantage on pitchouts and intentional walks (as well as
unofficial protection for umpires :-).). It forces the pitcher to make
an accurate throw to the outside part of the plate, and doesn't allow
the catcher unlimited room to compensate for a wild pitch.

   The catcher will jump out the box early on these occassions, but
umpires will generally not call this infraction, UNLESS the catcher
was able to stop a wild pitch because of his actions. The, the umpire
MIGHT call it (and you'll see the giant rhubarb on the highlight reel
later on.).

   By the way...if you want to really learn the game, become an
umpire! I've yet to see any region of North America that doesn't have
a shortage of umpires at the amateur level. If you're interested, drop
me a line!

						-Bill Currie
						 duxbury@sfu.ca
From: f67700241@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (Greg Franklin)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: "Favorite players of your youth" - still finishing it up.
Date: 19 Nov 92 06:51:47 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
Nntp-Posting-User: f67700241

I am sorry, but I have been so loaded down with other work lately that
I haven't been able to compile and annotate "the favorite players of your
youth" you all posted.  I'll try to finish it up by next weekend.  The
results are quite interesting.
-- 
Greg "Mockingbird" Franklin      Interviewer: "Sir, how do you spell relief?"
f67700241@ccit.arizona.edu               Dan: "R-O-L-A-I-D-S-E."

"[George Bush is] the most ruthless white man in the history of the planet."
	-- Richard Ben Cramer, author of _What It Takes_
"The President scores much better than Bill Clinton."
	-- Dan, comparing Bush's record of marital infidelity to Clinton's
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: dave@snitor.sni.ca (Dave Till)
Subject: Re: Steve Howe
Organization: Jays Fans Not Expecting Jim Abbott To Be Traded To Toronto, Inc.
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 16:51:53 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.103734.9761@netcom.com> arrow@netcom.com (Les Arrow) writes:
>In article <92323.121833RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu> RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu writes:
>>why should baseball care whether he's a drug addict or not? if convicted
>>of some crime, drug related or not, he should serve whatever sentence
>>the judge sees fit, and then become a free agent.
>>
>
>Personally I care because it sends a bad message and sets a real bad precedent
>every time he gets a new chance. I don't like what it says to our children.
>I don't like the fact that the next problem case that comes around will have
>to receive the same treatment. What does this say to Otis Nixon?

I, on the other hand, think that Steve Howe should be allowed to pitch as long
as he is not in prison.  If a player's (alleged) crime is not directly
related to baseball, punishing the player implies that baseball is above
the law.  Which it isn't.

I realize that parents want to ensure that their children learn
that drug use is a bad thing.  But I don't see any difference between
the following statements:

	"Allowing Steve Howe to pitch is wrong, because it says the
	wrong thing to our children."

	"Not locking up Steve Howe is wrong, because it says the
	wrong thing to our children."

Besides, it's not as though the average athlete is a person worthy of
childish hero-worship.  Most athletes are spoiled brats (and who can
blame them, since they've been treated as special ever since their
athletic gifts were first noticed).  Children should be told that these
men are to be admired for their athletic abilities, but are not to be used as
role models.

>Finally, it is real annoying to see baseball give Howe his 8th chance, when
>Pete Rose is still ineligible for the hall of fame. The logic of baseball
>always evades me.

I have always believed that Pete Rose is ineligible for one reason:
because Fay Vincent convinced himself that the stress of the Rose gambling
case killed Bart Giamatti.  (Giamatti was Vincent's close friend.)
Now that Vincent is gone, the owners are too busy trying to drive salaries
back into the Stone Age to worry about such minor issues as Rose's
eligibility for the Hall.

(For what it's worth:  I believe that Rose should be eligible for the Hall.
None of the alleged gambling on baseball accusations have been proven true.
Sure, he's a scumbag, but he was a great player.  Besides, there's a
precedent:  Ty Cobb, who was probably psychotic, is already in.)

--Dave "constantly hearing rumours about Sandy Alomar Jr." Till
  e-mail address:  dave@silver.sni.ca or dave@snitor.uucp
  "A virus is system software with no political power." -- Tom Wolfe (modified)
From: st1rp@rosie.uh.edu (Schwam, David S.)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Houston Protected List
Date: 17 Nov 1992 12:03 CST
Organization: University of Houston
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: rosie.uh.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1992Nov16.134444.12663@cs.tulane.edu>, eebonar@sn01.sncc.lsu.edu writes...

[Previous comments on Doug Jones deleted..]

> 
>	I'm not saying he is bad.  At the begining of the season I thought
>that Houston had made a great move in signing Jones to a AAA contract.  There
>was basically no downside (if he stunk like '91 they could get out of it
>for peanuts) and a great potential upside (as he showed).  He's proven to
>be a valuable pitcher for the Astro's; easily their best last year.
>	However, he's 36, and only one year away from a horrible year.  I can't
>see an expansion team taking him.  Thus, I'd go for the (in my opinion minor)
>risk of not protecting him and use the slot to protect Jeff Juden.  Juden
>didn't look as good this year but he is still a good young pitcher.  If I
>was running an expansion club I'd much prefer to draft Juden then Doug Jones.

    Well, you have to consider where Houston stands as a team now.  I believe
that they have ended their rebuilding stage and are seriously looking to 
contend next season.  There has been a lot of talk about acquiring Ozzie
Smith to fill the shortstop gap (he was here last week to meet with the
Houston people) as well as picking up a couple of quality starters.  
While losing Juden won't be the greatest thing, I think Houston considered
the need to retain a quality reliever in order to contend next season to
be more important.

>>day in and day out.  Without Jones, Houston has no effective closer.
> 
>	How do we know if Houston has an effective closer?  In '91 Osuna
>and Hernandez both looked good.  Hernandez looked great again this year. Why
>can't he close?  Osuna didn't look so hot but I haven't given up on him.  Boever
>has closed before (and looked very good).  If Doug Jones is such a commodity
>that Houston has to protect him in the draft then they should be able to
>swing a decent deal and get a real rightfielder for him.
>

     Osuna just doesn't have the consistancy that is needed for a closer.
He just isn't able to get the job done.  He's fine for middle relief, but
I would rather see Jones close.  Hernandez has been with Houston for
awhile (mostly in the minors).  He makes a fine setup man, and an occasional
closer, but once again consistancy is the problem.  I think he needs to
have another season like last year in order to really prove himself.  Like
I said earlier, I think the chance for contending has made it necessary
to protect Jones instead of passing the torch to a younger player.  Plus
the people here in Houston really like him.
    AND WHAT'S WRONG WITH ERIC ANTHONY?  He finally did something last year
and I hope that he continues belting them out.

--
David S. Schwam
st1rp@jetson.uh.edu

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: gcpahren@eos.ncsu.edu (GREGORY CHARLES PAHREN)
Subject: Predictions '93
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 17:57:02 GMT


So with the expansion draft over, and some major trades out of the way,
here is what I foresee in '93.

The Colorado Rockies, with the way they drafted, will be competitive
early.  They will probably even finish ahead of the Giants next year.

The Marlins will be terrible next year but will have a better future.

However, with the current status of the National League East (the Pirates
seem to be rebuilding despite 3 straight NL East titles), the Marlins
could possibly become the first team in history to win a division while
losing 100 games.

Just some thoughts.
-Greg
From: harder@wharton.upenn.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Al Rosen out
Date: 21 Nov 92 00:22:47 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

Just heard on CNN that Al Rosen resigned as G.M. of the Giants,
owing to new ownership.  He was somewhat  broken up about it
during the clip of the press conference that I saw.  Any 
speculation on who is next in line?  Is Roger Craig the next to
go?

-Joe Harder
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: kirby@athena.cs.uga.edu (Steven Kirby)
Subject: Re: creative managing
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 23:58:35 GMT

I have a funny feeling that a lot of other people know this too.  But in
a Mets-Reds game about 6-7 years ago, a big fight broke out.  A bunch of
guys got thrown out.  Davey Johnson ended up having to use Roger McDowell
and Jesse Orosco (I think it was Jesse Orosco) at the same time.  McDowell
pitched to right handed hitters, Orosco to lefties.  The odd man out played
right field.  As I recall, McDowell actually had to make one or two plays
in the outfield.  Seems to me Tim McCarver mentioned this game in his book
"Oh Baby, I Love It."
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: aboufadel@scsuc.ctstateu.edu (ABOUFADEL,E)
Subject: Draft Conspiracy Theory
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Keywords:  draft, Marlins, Rockies, Dodgers, Cubs
Organization: Southern Connecticut State University - Computer Center
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 21:25:00 GMT

This is silly, but...

	Is it possible that the Marlins and the Rockies made some effort
to really hurt a few teams by their picks.  From comments on the net, I 
gather that the Dodgers now have no 2nd basemen and the Cubs now have no
3rd basemen.  So, maybe the Marlins are figuring, "Wipe out the Cubs ... that's 
one less rival for 6th place."

Just a thought.

EA


Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: niguma@ug.cs.dal.ca (Gordon Niguma)
Subject: Re: Clemens Market Value (trade with Toronto)
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 19:36:01 GMT

In <1992Nov23.034655.28690@oz.plymouth.edu> s_bean@oz.plymouth.edu (Shaun P. Bean) writes:

>In article <By51G4.Hrn@cs.dal.ca> niguma@ug.cs.dal.ca (Gordon Niguma) writes:
>>In <1992Nov22.204157.4336@oz.plymouth.edu> s_bean@oz.plymouth.edu (Shaun P. Bean) writes:

>>>Throw in Wild Juan Guzman with Bell Ward and Delgado for Clemens and
>>>Greenwell and I think it is the best offer I've seen here so far.  Ted?
>>
>>  Well for starters, Toronto doesn't want Mike Greenwell and his high contract.
>>Second of all throwing in Guzman makes the trade a ripoff from Toronto's
>>standpoint. Do you really think that Toronto thinks that the difference 
>>between Clemens and Guzman is equal to an excellent closer, the best minor 
>>league catching prospect and a solid outfield prospect?

>Gordy,

>The above was a sarcastic joke.  We all know that Clemens is the most
>valuable pitcher to his team, Division, and League.  Why would anyone
>want to trade him to begin with?

  I don't understand. Are you saying that Clemens is worth MORE than the
the above players? Or are you being sarcastic again? Sorry I'm just not
seeing the sarcasm very well, I guess we need blatant 8-) for me...8-)

					Gord Niguma
					(fav player: John Olerud)

		  
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: arrow@netcom.com (Les Arrow)
Subject: Re: Tigers in 93? (Was: Re: Brewers in 93?)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 10:01:11 GMT

In article <19382@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> ez027993@dale.ucdavis.edu (Gary Fritters Of Delight Huckabay) writes:
>
>Bzzt.  Sorry, that's incorrect.  But thanks for playing.  Rickey Henderson, 
>in 1990, consumed 340 outs, not counting GIDP, which I don't have data
>for, but I'm relatively sure Rickey didn't ground into 117 DPs that year.
>
>Probably closer to 5 or 10.
>

Actually, 13, for a total of 353 in that season. Still, you're right I
was way off. Last time I take my information right out of a Bill James
Baseball Book.

>You may or may not like Mr. Henderson.  But face it.  Over his career,
>he is probably the best offensive player in baseball.  Rickey hits for
>average, hits for power, walks a bunch, and is a prolific, efficient
>basestealer.  No one is CLOSE to being as multifaceted, or as excellent.
>
>There are guys who hit for a higher average.
>There are guys who hit for more power, although not as many as you would
>guess.
>There are guys who walk more.  (Ok, TWO guys.)
>There are guys (now) who steal more bases.
>
>But - given the choice of any ONE player in baseball, 1980-1992, overall,
>who is the best offensive player?  Rickey.  And it's not close.
>

I like Henderson. I don't like his cry-baby attitude but as a player,
he certainly is an asset. Meanwhile, I think the jury is still out on him
for the future. He continues to get hurt every season. Should we continue
to expect the playing time to decrease? Only time will tell.

But the argument was about Fielder. There seems to be overwhelming
majority about Fielder being a "bum". I just disagree with that. Would I
say last year was a good season for him? No. But I do think he'll bounce back
in '93. 

I guess the real question is do you think a player who eats up
475 to 500 outs can be productive. I think so. I would love to know what
the average is in the league. Looking at 1991 stats in front of me I see:

Paul Molitor : .325, 133 runs, 93 Walks - 460 outs/471 avg over 162 games
Jose Canseco : .266, 115 runs, 86 Walks - 442 outs/464
Cecil Fielder : .261, 102 runs, 90 Walks - 482 outs/482

So, is 18 outs significant enough to regard Fielder as a wash out? I don't
think so. Not if he is able to be in the middle of the lineup and drive
in 130 runs with 44 HRs.Now once this productivity slips, granted he isn't
worth much, but I don't think we can judge this on one season. Personally
I don't think many players could have had such a poor season at the plate
and still accomplish the driving in talents of Fielder.


--Les
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: timlin@spot.Colorado.EDU (Michael Timlin)
Subject: Re: Marlins fans are merely jealous...
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 19:50:05 GMT

tedward@cs.cornell.edu (Edward [Ted] Fischer) writes:

>Actually, it seems to me that the exact opposite happened.  The
>Rockies drafted guys like Girardi, Bichette, Cole, Gallaraga, etc...
>The Marlins drafted a *lot* more kids.  IMHO, the Rockies have a
>chance at a superiour team in 1993, but that by 1995 the Rockies will
>be permanently ensconced in the cellar.  They wasted too many of their
>high picks on overaged, overpriced, no-talents.

>Admiteddly the Marlins *do* have Harvey and Weiss.  At that, I'm not
>convinced that their team salary is as high as that of the Rockies.
>Besides, I'm looking for Harvey to be traded to the Braves.  The
>Braves need a closer, and the Braves have a *ton* of excess talent of
>the quality the expansion teams need...  It's a match made in heaven.
>Note that the Braves have an excess of outfielders, while the Marlins
>have practically zero talent in the OF right now (they drafted some
>cool infielders, though).

I heard on the news that Harvey is guarenteed more money over the length
of his contract than all the Rockies picks combined have coming.  I
didn't do the math, so if this isn't true, it's my ignorance not stupidity.
Wait, if I parrot what I hear on TV, maybe it is my stupidity :).

Mike Timlin
timlin@spot.colorado.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball