HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: paul@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Paul R Krueger)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: AL Rookie of Year Award?
Date: 5 Oct 1992 18:20:49 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4

In article <1992Oct5.030209.369@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1afvtkINN8hk@uwm.edu> paul@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Paul R Krueger) writes:
>I'll be curious to see the first-to-third-on-a-single, opposition balk,
>and other stats of the like for 1991 and this year if anyone has them.
>Krueger's description is sounding more and more subjective.  I suspect,
>without any evidence to back me up, that the Brewers aren't taking the
>extra base any more *often* than they used to.  
    
    Yes, you're right, I am being subjective. It could very possibly be
    that I've been swept away by Garner and Co.'s hype. Still, this team
    seems very different to me than any team I've ever seen in Milwaukee.

>But if they've been at the top of the league in baserunning the last
>five years, then they've been aggressive all along, haven't they?
    
    Yes, but not near to the point that they are now. I don't have the
    exact totals, but I believe their end-of-the-season stolen base total  
    for this year is about 70-80 higher than any of the past four or five
    years. 

    Friday night's game was a perfect example. Having Hamilton steal in
    the ninth down 3-2? They would have never done that before this year.
    Thursday against Seattle, down a couple runs and having Seitzer and
    Fletcher double steal in the late innings. Never, ever before this
    year. I don't have the stats or know them, but I think if anyone does,
    the stats will prove me right about their overwhelming aggressiveness.

    --salty


Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: aardvark@locus.com (Warren Usui)
Subject: Re: Better than Runs
Organization: Locus Computing Corporation, Los Angeles, California
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 17:15:33 GMT

In article <92272.114753IOR@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> Thomas Hyer <IOR@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> writes:
|  OK, I was stupid.  I posted an argument without an
|example.  So here's one:
|
|  Team A scores 1 run each inning.
|  Team B scores 9 runs 1/9 of the time, 0 the rest.
|
|In the course of a season, both teams will score the
|same number of runs (neglecting statistical fluctuations).
|However, Team A will certainly win more games.
|
|Team A always scores 9 runs (in my league, we play the
|bottom of the ninth every time :), which wins maybe 90%
|of the time.  Team B, on the other hand, scores
|
|0 runs 35% of the time  (winning 1%)
|9 runs 39% of the time  (winning 90%)
|18 or more runs 26% of the time (winning 100%)
|
|and wins only 62% of its games.  Thus Team A's runs are
|more valuable than Team B's.  (Note that Team A wins 70%
|of head-to-head contests.)
|
|I hope this is sufficiently clear by now.  Again, does
|anyone have the distribution of runs/inning for either
|league?
|

I think that this example is unrealistic because the number of runs scored
is too high.  If team A scored one run every 2 innings, and team B scored
4 or 5 runs in one inning every 9 innings, the numbers might be more realistic.
In particular, having team A always score nine runs a game causes the 90%
win rate to be way off.  Why not try the following?

	Team A scores 1000 runs an inning.
	Team B scores 9000 runs one inning every nine innings.

Now team A wins 100% of their games, and team B wins around 65% of their
games.
-- 
Warren Usui
aardvark@locus.com
uunet!lcc!aardvark

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: rickert@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (John H. Rickert)
Subject: Re: running <-> errors?
Organization: Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 18:55:48 GMT


In article <1achpqINNl4h@uwm.edu> paul@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Paul R Krueger)  
writes:
> In article <1992Sep29.202136.2138@cs.rose-hulman.edu>  
rickert@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (John H. Rickert) writes:
> I looked this up in TSN and found that the Brewers 
> >had committed the 2nd fewest errors (82), but their opponents
> >had committed the second most errors (131).
> >
> >I still don't think it translates into 20 wins.
>    
>    Maybe, maybe not. This doesn't include mental errors (like Kelly Downs
>    throwing to 3B on a bunt by Listach instead of making the obvious play
>    at first) and the numerous times that Milwaukee has gambled on its
>    opponent not making a play. For instance, sending non-fleet-afoot  
Franklin
>    Stubbs home from second on a single to left. All it might take is a good
>    throw to get him, but more often than not the throw is in the dirt, or  
up
>    the line, or whatever allowing a Brewer baserunner to score or take an
>    extra base. Milwaukee takes these chances and because of its reputation,
>    usually wins on these gambles. 

But the problem is that the 'cost' of a failed gamble
is much higher than the 'gain' from a success.
   Kevin Seitzer has 11SB, but 11CS. Those 11SB figure to 
add 3-4 runs, but those 11CS figure to subtract 6-7 runs. 
Those outs remove a baserunner and take away one of our outs.
   Overall, I think that the Brewers have come out ahead, 
but not by *that* much.

john rickert
rickert@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu
Go Brewers!
From: str@maredsous.Eng.Sun.COM (Todd Rader)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Cy Young?
Date: 3 Oct 1992 00:26:53 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems
Distribution: world
Reply-To: str@maredsous.Eng.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: maredsous

In article 124355BARBER@MAINE.MAINE.EDU, BARBER@MAINE.MAINE.EDU (Wayne Barber) writes:
%In article <1992Oct1.012542.7469@cs.wayne.edu>, dfl@math.wayne.edu (David
%Frohardt-Lane) says:
%>>The american league would probably have to be Roger Clemens again.  Same
%>>story.
%>
%>I agree with you here.  Did anyone see Baseball Weekly's article making
%>their choices for the award winnners?  They had Jack McDowell as the AL
%>Cy Young winner!!  The article noted that his ERA was a bit high, but
%>that he was a good compromise choice (I don't understand this).  They
%>were also crazy in picking Eckersley for MVP.
%>
%The article quoted Dave Stewart (an impartial observer on Roger Clemens)
                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
%that Roger should not win because the Red Sox are in last place.  Thus,
%while Jack McDowell is a worse pitcher, his team's offense was better
%and he won 20 games.
%
%This is utter nonsense.

   [ Wayne goes on to back up his argument ]
   
Were you being sarcastic when you wrote the underlined part (no smileys) ?
It's my impression that Stew is anything BUT an impartial observer of Roger
Clemens.  In 1986 (Clemens' second Cy year and Stew's first 20-win year)
he commented "I think I'm as good as that guy in Boston" (regarding Stew's
Cy chances).  In the infamous Clemens Ejection Game Stew made some, er,
unfavorable comments about Clemens afterward.  In their excellent head-to-head
matchups of the late '80's Stew pitched some of his best games.  It seemed
to be a sort of Clemens vendetta.

Of course, Dave Stewart cannot be considered an impartial observer of Jack
"he can't hold my jock" McDowell either.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: bulleri@chopin.eng.gtefsd.com (Chris Bulleri)
Subject: AL:  CY YOUNG - Mike Mussina
Reply-To: bulleri@chopin.eng.gtefsd.com (Chris Bulleri)
Organization: Contel Federal Systems
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 11:56:26 GMT

Well with all this talk about the CY Young starting up,
has anyone ever thought of Mike Mussina of the Orioles.
Take a look at his record, era, and if you consider
that if the bullpen hadn't blown about 5 leads for him
this year he would have a most impressive record.  
Right now he is 18 - 5 with about a 2.56 era, I think
a little less after last nights 3-2 win.  Granted he
won't get the 20 wins but although he doesn't strike
out as many men as McDowell he also doesn't walk as many.

Now he probably won't get it but he should get a least 
a few votes considering what he has done.

Just a Thought

Chris
bulleri@europa.eng.gtefsd.com
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: rileyrm@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu
Subject: Re: Cy Young?
Organization: Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 15:24:08 GMT

Distribution: world

In article <25670@oasys.dt.navy.mil> kiviat@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Brian  
Kiviat) writes:
> Just as the title line says.....Who should win the Cy Young
> 
>    O                                     There are two kinds of people:
>    I\   Brian Kiviat (301)227-1833       The people who know alot, and
>    I \  kiviat@oasys.dt.navy.mil         the people who want you to
>   /     David Taylor Model Basin         think they know alot. The hard
>    \___________________________          part is discerning the  
difference
> 			     \\          between the two.
Are you concerned with the National League or the American league?
The national league has to be Tom Glavine without a doubt.  No other  
pitcher has excelled the way he has in the national league.
The american league would probably have to be Roger Clemens again.  Same  
story.
Question:  if Clemens wins, won't that give him more Cys than any other  
pitcher in history?

Ryan Riley
"the Cowboy"
Date: Tuesday, 29 Sep 1992 13:48:44 EST
From: <RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Elias/STATS projections
 <92272.184124RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu>
 <1992Sep29.051209.19956@midway.uchicago.edu>

by "better", as in "my stupid prediction system was better than either
james' or elias' prediction system", i mean that the typical batter's
batting average was closer to the league's average from the year before
than it was to the batting average predicted for that player by either
company.

granted, it wasn't a very all-encompassing test, and it was only half a
season, but i think it still says something.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: tedward@cs.cornell.edu (Edward [Ted] Fischer)
Subject: One-hitter
Summary: Will the idiot in the back row please raise his hand?
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 03:34:14 GMT


Frank Viola is through, huh?  Hah!  Viola just finished *the* best,
*the* clutchest performance of any pitcher this year!  With the season
drawing to a close, a win would have practically clinched the division
for the Blue Jays.  Viola begged Hobson to let him go on three days
rest, wanting to pitch in one last big game this season.

You *knew* this was going to be a low-scoring game.  The Sox offense
is utterly anemic, and Cone is a damn good pitcher.  True to form,
they only got four hits and one run off of him.  (Needless to say, the
run was *not* produced by Hatcher, Winningham, Lyons, Boggs, or Pena.
Only the kids have produced *anything* this year.)

So what does Viola do?  He throws the best game of his life, stomping
the Blue Jays in a one-hit four-walk masterpiece!  Though he was
clearly tiring in the eighth inning (pitching on short rest), he knew
there was no relief to be had from the Sox bullpen, and so hung in
there to the end.  Even White's hit was simply a jam job up the
middle.  The Jays only once (I think) got a runner past first base,
and *that* was on a sacrifice bunt.

The Red Sox have done their job.  They have done everything in their
power to help the Brewers win, taking the season series from the Jays
while losing 5-8 to the Brewers.  (The only other teams against which
the Sox have a winning record this year are Seattle, California, and
KC.)  I hope you appreciate the importance of this accomplishment,
Salty!

Cheers,
-Valentine
-- 
Make outs, not walks!					tedward@cs.cornell.edu
Clemens four Cy Young!
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: APBA Inventor dies
Date: 27 Sep 92 17:40:38 GMT
Article-I.D.: midway.1992Sep27.174038.7329
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

John Richard Seitz, who invented APBA Baseball, died of a heart attack
at the age of 77 in Lancaster, PA.
-- 
           .. . . .  .  .   .    .     .     .    .   .  .  . . . ..
          ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
         the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
From: aardvark@locus.com (Warren Usui)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Unified Stathead Theory
Date: 5 Oct 92 22:16:46 GMT
Organization: Locus Computing Corporation, Los Angeles, California

I have written a crude simulator to determine the value of a player.  What
it does is it takes a batting order and inserts that player's stats for
the first through eighth position in the batting order.  Thus if you run
it 1000 times, it will play that player 1000 times at lead-off, 1000 times
batting second, etc. for 8000 simulated games.  The hitting stats for the
other positions are a position average based on the 1991 combined major
league stats.

Anyway, it seems that Fred McGriff is better than Will Clark three out of
every four times this simulation is run, but Will Clark does come out ahead
25% of the time.  This program does not seem to settle the Barry Bonds vs.
Frank Thomas argument very well but does settle the Barry Bonds vs. Jose
Lind argument quite nicely.

However, just for curiousity's sake, I tried this program with what I
thought my stats would be in the majors.  I had a hypothetical player
strike out in every at bat.  Well when I run this simulation for this
player, the expected number of runs each game is an eerily accurate
approximation of pi.

Finally I ran it 12,500 times for a total of 100,000 games, and 
the total number of runs scored was 314159!  I now propose the
following algorithm for computing pi, one that I believe to be completely
original:

	1. Take an average baseball team
	2. Randomly insert one player into the lineup who always strikes out 
	3. See how many runs that team scores.

As this series continues to infinity, the average number of runs scored
approaches pi.

-- 
Warren Usui
aardvark@locus.com
uunet!lcc!aardvark
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: tedward@cs.cornell.edu (Edward [Ted] Fischer)
Subject: Re: What is baseball?
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 23:24:02 GMT

In article <carl.717711012@warper.jhuapl.edu> carl@warper.jhuapl.edu (Carl Lamy) writes:
>
>Meanwhile, teams usually stay with
>a bad hitter because that's who the team has to play a particular position,
>so a team's hitting probably varies alot.

Don't think so.  While the O's certainly exhibit this behavior with
their second base situation, most teams are reasonably prompt at
getting replacements for players who can't handle the job.

>A good pitcher will make a hitter hit
>the ball to where his defense is positioned.

I disagree here too.  The pitcher can do a *little* bit to influence
whether it is a ground ball or fly ball, and which side of the diamond
it is on.  But not incredibly much.  Otherwise you would see a lot
more Nokes shifts used (where the shortstop plays second base, and the
second baseman plays short right field).

I'm also skeptical about the claim that a grounder is a grounder and
the pitcher doesn't matter.  But I think the primary role of a pitcher
is to get the hitter off balance, so the ball is hit softly.

>Granted, a good hitter will try
>to hit 'em where they ain't, but on base percentages still show a dominance
>of pitching (and defense) over hitting.

Dominance?  Yes.  Importance?  Not the same thing.  Again, goalies in
hockey make the save 90% of the time.  But the goalie is not 90% of
the game.

Cheers,
-Valentine
-- 
Make outs, not walks!					tedward@cs.cornell.edu
Clemens four Cy Young!
From: z_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: one shot wonders/single season records
Date: 29 Sep 92 17:45:18 GMT
Article-I.D.: ccsvax.1992Sep29.114520.1251
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University

If you look back at single season records for batters, some of them have
been set by people who never came close again:

	HR: 61 (Maris never had as many as 40 in any other season)
	Doubles: 64 (can't remember the name, but never hit as many as 50 in
		any other season)
	Triples: 36 (name eludes me, but he never hit as many as 20 in any
		other season)


Brandon Cope

(ps. Earl Webb is either the leader with doubles or triples; can't remember
which)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: kbowers@esrc1.uucp (Ken Bowers)
Subject: Re: Torre!  Torre!  Torre!
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:09:00 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.224250.7263@adobe.com> snichols@adobe.com (Sherri Nichols) writes:
>In article <56369@olivea.atc.olivetti.com> rsmith@strobe.ATC.Olivetti.Com (Russ Smith) writes:
>>Realistically the season comes down to one thing, not being able to beat
>>the Pirates head to head. they beat us 15 out of 18. If we played .500
>>against them, we would be right there in the race.
>
>Not to pick on Russ, but I hear this sort of thing regularly: "If only they
>had won more games against Team Y, who beat them 15 of 18" or "If only they
>had played better against their own division (or the other division)".  I
>don't really think this makes any sense.  I mean, teams are going to lose
>50-100 games a season; it'd be unusual if those losses were evenly
>distributed among all their opponents.   
>

I guess this argument comes down to "chop up the season into 12 and 
18 game sets any way you want to; a team's records will vary wildly
within the sets."

Fine, but these games do have *some* similarities (at least in a 
series against a team; blaming it on play against a whole division
seems hard to get away with). I'd like to hear some explanations for
why the Cards had a tough time with the Pirates before falling into
the trap of "random variation can explain this, so no other factors
could have come into play." 

Ken B.
From: rstimets@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (robert and stimets)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: OH, HELL!   was: Re: BRAVES CLINCH
Summary: Reds fans: at least we can finish all those chores we've been putting off.
Date: 30 Sep 92 19:23:44 GMT
Article-I.D.: usenet.BvEoJL.77C
Organization: Indiana University

In article <1992Sep30.134638.8319@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson) writes:
>Two straight NL West titles!
>
>Bring the 'rates on!
>
>But seriously, take yourself back in time to October 1990. The Braves have
>just finished last again.
>
>Go up to a policeman in Atlanta and tell him you think the Braves will win
>the next TWO NL West titles, and by OCt 1992 will be one of the dominant
>teams in baseball.
>
>The policeman would have escorted you to a padded cell......
>

Barring realignment, count on another two years.

OH, HELL!!

This was the year that the Reds were the class and the rest were, well, the rest.

But now I can finally put this miserable season behind me.  (Why am I miserable?
At least I'm not a Dodger fan  :)  )
Actually, though it probably doesn't make the pill any sweeter for Dodger fans,
they were out of the race in July, and are numbed to looking at Offerman watch
a slow roller pass between his legs into left field.

Now I hear that Swindell will be allowed to WALK (!!!!) at the end of the
season.
Excuse me??
Beg your pardon????
How the hell do you trade for somebody of that caliber and then let him go one
year later just after he proves to be among the League's best?  C'mon Marge!! Crack 
open that damn checkbook of yours and get yourself a team!!!  Are you so short-
sighted as to think one year's high (though not nearly highest) salary would
guarantee a World Series ring?  And since the 3,000,000-fan mark won't be
hit this year does that mean that certain players aren't living up to their 
pay.  (Well, actually, there is truth to this one.  But surely no list of CULPRITS
in the Reds disappointing season will have the name Swindell)

Now that I'm in full ramble,

CULPRITS: (my version)
1:  Scott Ruskin
2:  Paul O'Neill
3:  Dave Martinez
4:  Chris Hammond
5:  Bill Doran
6:  Tom Bolton
7:  Glenn Braggs

If Marge really wants to save a buck, she'd trade or leave these folks unpro-
tected, go back up to Cleveland (where they're afraid their team might start
winning) and pick up a few more ace players at bargain-basement prices.

HEROES:  (why not?  I've been bitching all year..)
1:  Bip Roberts (an NL batting title?)
2:  Barry Larkin (simply put, the BEST shortstop anywhere)
3:  Greg Swindell (see above)
4:  Reggie Sanders (could hit 30 homers next year)
5:  Jose Rijo (shitty run support, though)

So, congratulations to the Braves, but go Pirates!

Wait 'till '95!!

RStimets
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: brad@meaddata.com (Brad Craig)
Subject: Re: AL Rookie of Year Award?
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1992 13:23:38 GMT
Article: 63897 of rec.sport.baseball
Distribution: usa

In article <19tlf1INNg3s@uwm.edu>, paul@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Paul R Krueger) writes:
|> In article <1992Sep24.005557.20452@odin.corp.sgi.com> dickh@tribe.esd.sgi.com (Dick Harkness) writes:
|> >
|> >Exactly correct.  In addition, I would state that Lofton has been
|> >more valuable to the Indians than Listach has been to the Brewers.  On
|> >stats, it is close, on impact to the ballclub, I give the nod to Lofton.
|>     
|>     Oh yeah, fer sure! Where would Cleveland be without Lofton?? Hmmmm. Instead
|>     of 72-79, 16 games out of first, they might be 65-85, 22 games out of
|>     first. Boy that's a drastic change!
|> 
|>     Now what about Listach? Without him (maybe using Fletcher at short and  
|>     Ganter at second) the Brewers would probably be about 76-76, 13 games
|>     out of first compared to 85-67 and 3 and 1/2 out of first. It might even
|>     be worse than that since the Brewers have won several (probably over 20)
|>     games with their running, and with no Listach, Molitor would be forced to
|>     leadoff. With no Molitor batting third, Milwaukee's run production goes
|>     down massively.
|> 
|>     That's where the word valuable comes in. Listach has been an infinite
|>     number times more valuable to the Brewers, than Lofton to the Indians.
|>     Simply put, without Listach the Brewers are comparable to the Indians,
|>     with him, they're in a pennant race.
|> 
|>     --salty
|> 
|> >Dick Harkness

As was said in some other follow-ups to this post RoY is not
necessarily the mostvaluable player to a team. I looked at the stats
for both Lofton and Listach ...

As of Baseball Weekly, Sept 23.

	BA  OBA SA  OB+S G   AB  R  H   2B 3B HR RBI BB SO  SB CS
Lofton	284 361 364 725  136 536 90 152 12 8  5  37  63 46  60 12
Listach	302 361 366 727  137 533 89 161 19 6  1  45  49 109 53 15

        GS  INN  PO  A   E  DP PCT RNG
Lofton  130 1169 396 12  7  2  983 3.14
Listach 133 1170 218 406 23 83 964 4.80

Pretty even excpet for two, strike outs and errors. Lofton has only
struck out 46 times as opposed to 109 times for Listach. Listach has
23 erros to Loftons 7. I understand that Listach is a SS while Lofton
is an OF so chances for errors might be greater in the infield. The
same can be said for assist (A) and double plays (DP) I also did a
quick scan of the Brewers stats and 23 errors appears to lead the
team.

I am a Cleveland fan so I follow Lofton. He has 62 stolen bases now,
which broke the club record.

-- 
Brad Craig        | "A flute with no holes is   |              (513) 865-1536
Mead Data Central |  not a flute. A donut with  | Common Object Library Group
P.O. Box 933      |  no hole is a danish."      |           brad@meaddata.com
Dayton, OH 45401  |    -- Zen philosopher Basho |     ...!uunet!meaddata!brad


Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball