HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gfb@debs.Eng.Sun.COM (Gary Brown - TechnicaL WriteR - SunConnect)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: More on Bond's Antics.
Date: 21 Dec 92 21:51:31 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: debs

In article <1gtilkINNdd9@transfer.stratus.com>, jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann) writes:
> In article <BzH4MC.5LL@ns1.nodak.edu> sivaram@plains.NoDak.edu (The  
> Purple Bleeder ) writes:
> > 
> > One of the MLB official who travelled to Loisville for the
> > winter meetings, was on the same flight as his Royal
> > Highness, Mr Barry-Greedy-Bonds.
> > 
> > According to the official, Bonds was loud and rude on the
> > plane and constantly complaining loud as to how the
> > Yankees *insulted* him with their 5 yr $36 Million offer he
> > had turned down a few days earlier (source S-I).
> > 
> > Talk of insults...what about people struggling on the streets
> > in this country for getting a decent meal.. Mr Bonds should
> > be knowing that.
> >
> In one sense I agree with you.  But let's change the scenario 
> a bit.  Let's say you are a computer programmer working for
> company X.  The average computer programmers of your caliber 
> usually makes, say, $65,000 per year.  Some programmers who are less 
> productive than you are now making $55,000 a year.  You have been 
> told by your peers you are one of the best. All objective analysis 
> shows you are far better than average.  Now, your company 
> comes along and says: as a salary this year, we'd like to give
> you $50,000. 
> 
> What's your reaction.  Remember, there are people living on 
> the street to whom $50,000 would be a small fortune.  But
> wouldn't you still feel insulted. It's not just the 
> gross amount of money (and some of these players do make
> a gross amount).  It's how much someone values you. If they
> say you're great, but want to pay you below average for
> what you can do, you'll feel insulted, no matter what the
> absolute amount.
> 
> 
> --
> Jim Mann            
> Stratus Computer   jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com  

I think there is BIG difference between what you describe above and 
what had "insulted" Mr. Bonds!  If you average out the Yankees $36 million
offer over 5 years, that comes to roughly $7.2 million per year!!!!!!
Let me repeat that number, $7.2 million PER YEAR!  Anyone that
would have the gall to be insulted by such an offer is a complete
AS*HOLE, IMHO!!!  Now we have two of these whining, over-paid, prima donnas
in the Bay Area!  The other, in my opinion, is Rickey Henderson, in case
someone was wondering.

If only someone would insult me the way the Yankees insulted Mr. Bonds!!

Happy Holidays!

/Gary Brown
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: gds@york.cs.ucla.edu (Greg Skinner)
Subject: Re: Tanana
Originator: gds@york.cs.ucla.edu
Reply-To: gds@cs.ucla.edu (Greg Skinner)
Organization: in your face!
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 21:12:04 GMT

>Why not let him prove it in the majors?  What happens to a pitcher's
>psyche if you put him out there and he gets the hell beat out of him?
>You can keep telling him he is a marvelous pitcher all you want, but
>he's going to see high ERAs, short appearances, hear the crowd yelling
>(and New York crowds are very creative, just ask Jose Canseco!), and
>read the papers all saying what kind of stiff he is.  With all that, do
>you know what you get?

Imagine what the careers of Pete Smith and Steve Avery would have been
if they'd started out in NY instead of Atlanta ...
From: bspencer@cs.mcgill.ca (Brian SPENCER)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Expos Clinch! Wallach to Dodgers
Date: 26 Dec 92 06:57:12 GMT
Organization: SOCS - Mcgill University, Montreal, Canada

In article <1992Dec26.031200.7744@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>In article <1992Dec25.220642.27251@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> nlu@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec25.193739.29847@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>>
>>>The Expos probably gain a year in the amount of time they can keep
>>>the current team together by this move.
>>>
>>>The big decision now will come with Martinez...I'm not sure they
>>>can afford a contract extension for him, so next season may be
>>>Martinez's last with the Expos, and after that some younger
>>>arms are going to have to emerge.
>>
>>I don't think the situation is similar.  Wallach is a liability.  Martinez is
>>not (yet) a liability, so in a year where they'll definitely contend, why
>>trade him?
>
>The issue is not whether to trade him...he will undoubtedly play for the Expos
>this year...but I think Martinez wants to negotiate the contract
>extension now.  The issue is whether the Expos want him beyond this
>season.
>
>Gerald

The reason why Martinez wanted his contract extended was that he will be
making $2.5M this year, DOWN from $3.5M last year. The Expos
hadn't expected him to be this good at this age. Dennis wants his money
this year and the Expos told him NO. Martinez defenitely holds grudges,
though this time he can't cry racism, because his manager is from the
DR. Martinez has already stated that unless the Expos extend his
contract, this will be his last year in Montreal. I think its a case of
mutual divorce.

One more thing about Wallach. I think he's the classiest guy to ever
dorn an Expos uniform. It's a shame to see him go. Too bad he couldn't
keep up his offense.


Brian Spencer (bspencer@binkley.cs.mcgill.ca)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: paula@koufax.cv.hp.com (Paul Andresen)
Subject: Re: Birthdays
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 15:52:19 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.190249.2491@u.washington.edu>, sgs@stein.u.washington.edu (Steven Smith) writes:
|> 
|> December 27
|> George "White Wings" Tebeau, 1861 (Is this also "Patsy"?)

No, White Wings is Patsy's older brother. 

There is a third Tebeau, "Pussy" (I kid you not), unrelated to the other two.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              If you're really hip, the passing years will show.
                                           ......Tower Of Power

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

    home: 3006 NW McKinley    Corvallis, OR 97330       (503)-752-8424
                            A SABR member since 1979
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball

WARNING * WARNING * WARNING

Religious/Flame War about to commence :-) :-) :-)


>Among the baseball publications: Baseball America, Baseball Digest and 
>Baseball Weekly, which is the best one to subscribe to?  How often are these
>publications issued in a given year?  What are the attractive features of
>each publication?  Thanks for the information.


Baseball America  =  The original!  Best for articles and opinion.  Also best
                     for news on minor leagues.  More info in the by-team
                     articles, though usually it's pretty minor detail.


Baseball Digest   =  Trash!  Come on, this doesn't even belong on the list.
                     Does it?


Baseball Weekly   =  The new guy.  I'll probably be in the minority, but I
                     really like the Baseball Weekly.  It has good up-to-date
                     stats.  The articles and opinions are not as good as BA.
                     Good for injury information and transactions.  Stats 
                     include nice things like performance during last 2 and 4
                     weeks.  Sometimes the various computer generated player
                     ratings/rankings are interesting.  Getting better on
                     stats from minor leagues.  Stats from winter leagues has
                     been interesting so far.  

BW clearly is trying to beat Baseball America, and they are doing good enough
for me to subscribe to both Baseball America and the Baseball Weekly.  For 
1993, Baseball America will be published bi-weekly (26 issues).  I think BW is
bi-weekly during the offseason and weekly during the season.

If you play Rotisserie, then I think you need both.

Lynch "MOB"
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Expos Clinch! Wallach to Dodgers
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 09:26:10 GMT

Probably 8 billion people will respond before me, since I just got back
from break, but maybe not.  Maybe you guys were all gone too:

In article <1992Dec26.005346.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> djcoll04@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:

>Hey Expos fans, lets be realistic.  The loss of Wallach and Owen leaves us

Take your own advice...

>with the prospect of a virtually all-rookie infield.  The only real 

So?  I thought the idea was to get guys who could *play*, not guys who
had played a long time.

>exception is Deshields, who is far from a Gold Glove.  The loss of Owen and 
>Wallach runs the risk of running up Dodger-like error totals in the infield.
>Don't forget -- the Expos had a better team batting average and (I think) 
>team ERA than the Pirates in '92.  What vaulted Pittsburgh ahead in the last
>two years has been stellar defense.

First of all, the Expos *didn't* have a better team batting average.
Secondly, why do we care?  We want to know who had a better *offense*,
and the answer is Pittsburgh, because they scored more runs.

>Also, Wallach's offense should not be written off.  His '92 BA wasn't much
>worse than Deshields '91 BA.  Delino came back and so could Tim, despite his
>age.  

Except for one thing.  Okay, more than one thing.  Batting average has
little to do with it.  Tim Wallach hasn't done a *thing* in 2 years.  

Deshields 91: 238/347/332.  Which made him an average second baseman.
Wallach 92:   223/296/331.  Which made him a *putrid* third baseman.

And, of course,
Wallach 91:   225/292/334.  Same thing.

When Deshields didn't hit, he still got on base.  Wallach didn't.  And
Wallach is held to third baseman standards, not second baseman.

Not to mention the fact that "despite his age" is like saying, "Abraham
Lincoln could win the Boston Marathon this year, despite the fact that
he's dead."

It isn't despite his age.  35 year old players who have been AWFUL at 33
and 34 don't suddenly "come back."  If he had had *one* bad year, it
would have been unlikely.  But *two* bad years?  

Come on.  Sure, it could happen.  And I could win the lottery 83
straight times.  But I wouldn't bet on it.

>Hey baseballophiles, still looking for more info on Tim Spehr and Tim Barker.
>Anyone see them in minor league games?

-- 
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: drw3l@delmarva.evsc.Virginia.EDU (David Robert Walker)
Subject: Re: More on Bonds' Antics
Organization: University of Virginia
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 16:11:57 GMT

In article Gary Brown  writes:
>
>
>I think there is BIG difference between what you describe above and 
>what had "insulted" Mr. Bonds!  If you average out the Yankees $36 million
>offer over 5 years, that comes to roughly $7.2 million per year!!!!!!
>Let me repeat that number, $7.2 million PER YEAR!  Anyone that
>would have the gall to be insulted by such an offer is a complete
>AS*HOLE, IMHO!!!  Now we have two of these whining, over-paid, prima donnas

Madonna. Michael Jordan. Michael Jackson. Charles Keating. Lee
Iacocca. Jack Nicholson. Ah-nuld Schwarzenegger.

Anyone at the top of their field in entertainment industries gets that
kind of money. Some of the top people in business, industry, and crime
get that much. Coke barons like Pablo Escobar probably make 100x that. 

>in the Bay Area!  The other, in my opinion, is Rickey Henderson, in case
>someone was wondering.
>
>If only someone would insult me the way the Yankees insulted Mr. Bonds!!

When YOU learn to hit for a .620 slugging average and a .450 on-base
average, someone probably would insult you that way. Bonds' contract
is probably a batter deal for the Giants than Ripken's is with
Baltimore or Sandberg's with the Cubs. He had every right to expect
more than they did, because he has a higher expected performance level
over the next five-six years. 

Bonds is a year younger than I am, and has much rarer skills. I think
if I were discussing contracts that would pay me thirty+ million
dollars over the next few years, I would be a little giddy; my mouth
and brain would have pretty loose connections whilst I settled down
from the hormaones and endorphins that would be kicking in. 

Unless you own stock in the Giants, though, it won't hurt you anyway.
Learn to live it; there are as*holes everywhere.

>Happy Holidays!
>
>/Gary Brown

Clay D.

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: kirsch@staff.tc.umn.edu (Dave 'Almost Cursed the Jays' Kirsch)
Subject: Re: Baseball finances query
Organization: Li'l Carlos and the Hormones
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 22:41:47 GMT

  I thought I'd interject a little side note in the midst of this baseball
finances discussion. 

  The Cleveland Indians reportedly *lost* money last year, with a player
payroll of $8 million. What, do they order their bats through the Department
of Defense? Let's see, at $1,000 per bat, that comes to ... 

  In all seriousness, how can they expect people to believe this? It's not a 
random thing .. I've seen it reported in several different places including
ESPN, several print sources (including, I believe, McWeekly and/or Baseball 
America) and in the local media. What really scares me is the utter lack of
basic math/logic skills mediots have shown (or perhaps they just refuse to
use said skills). I have yet to see one mediot or even normally sensible 
media type so much as question this for a nanosecond; they're all accepting 
it as gospel. 

  Ok, real quickly now. Math 101, short course: 

  National TV revenue = ~$15 million/team 
  Indians player payroll = ~$8 million (by *far* largest team expense) 

  Even with generous allowances for additional expenses, to me usually 

    $15 million > $8 million 

  before you ever start talking about additional sources of revenue (ticket 
sales, concessions, parking, MLB merchandising, etc, etc  

  Since I doubt the Indians have invested $30-40 million in front office
salaries and/or new equipment, I suggest the following .. 

  Top 10 reasons the Indians lost money last year 

10) Lost arbitration case with Jake the Janitor 
9)  Forgot to make past due payments to Andre Thornton for the last decade  
8)  Rick Bay is still the buffoon he was as AD at the U of M 
7)  Forgot to write off Christmas Party LAST year  
6)  Thought they were paying Felix Fermin in Pesos instead of dollars  
5)  Signed the 'Quiz' at Joe Lundy's urging without telling anyone, then had 
      him pitch in Steve Olin's place; mistakenly gave Quiz lifetime contract
4)  Still making palimony payments to former ballgirl for former owner  
3)  Had to pay cash up front NOW for new stadium or else .. something about 
      broken kneecaps and Gary Huckabay in a camisole  
2)  Accounting intern added 3 digits by accident to mascot's salary, paid him
      $25,000,000 instead of $25,000  
1)  They didn't. 

  Sigh. Sometimes the mediots amaze even *me*. 

  Sure, over half the teams in baseball are losing money. As soon as they
open their books I'll start to *consider* the possibility it may be true for
a couple of teams, if the numbers aren't excessively cooked. I put the
possibility of this (both teams opening their books and several teams losing 
money) at, oh, about 0.05% or so. 

-- 
Dave Hung Like a Jim Acker Slider Kirsch             kirsch@staff.tc.umn.edu 
Toronto Blue Jays - 1992 World Champions!      New .. quotes out of context!
".. you'd probably be teaching me how to get it up .."  - Jason Abner Miller 
".. Italian for suppository..which was genuinely hard for me .." - R. Lustig 
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: hpw@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Harry P Warren)
Subject: Re: Statheads and park effects
Reply-To: hpw@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Harry P Warren)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 14:11:05 GMT


> On the other hand, one can note that Wade Boggs has *never* played
> spectacularly well outside of Fenway: his stats have been inflated
> by the fact that he would consistently (until this year) hit .380
> in Boston, but 75 points below that with half as many XBH outside
> of Fenway. 

How many other players have hit .380 in Fenway Park? How many players
have hit .300+ on the road over the last seven or eight seasons? If
Boggs weren't a great hitter, I don't think that he would be able to
"inflate" his statistics so much.

harry warren
hpw@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu


Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: djcoll04@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: Expos Clinch! Wallach to Dodgers
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 04:53:46 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

Hey Expos fans, lets be realistic.  The loss of Wallach and Owen leaves us
with the prospect of a virtually all-rookie infield.  The only real 
exception is Deshields, who is far from a Gold Glove.  The loss of Owen and 
Wallach runs the risk of running up Dodger-like error totals in the infield.
Don't forget -- the Expos had a better team batting average and (I think) 
team ERA than the Pirates in '92.  What vaulted Pittsburgh ahead in the last
two years has been stellar defense.

Also, Wallach's offense should not be written off.  His '92 BA wasn't much
worse than Deshields '91 BA.  Delino came back and so could Tim, despite his
age.  

Hey baseballophiles, still looking for more info on Tim Spehr and Tim Barker.
Anyone see them in minor league games?
                                 
                                     Merry Xmas,
                                                 Patrick Tierney
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: wall@cc.swarthmore.edu (Matthew Wall)
Subject: Re: Statheads and park effects
Followup-To: rec.sport.baseball
Organization: Swarthmore College Computing CenterCenter
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 15:30:14 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.171336.3650@news.columbia.edu>,
hpw@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Harry P Warren) wrote:
> 
> > The fact that Boggs is (was) a great hitter is irrelevant. "Great" is 
> > kind of subjective, and certainly not very quantifiable.
> 
> The fact that Wade Boggs is a great hitter is very relevant. "Great"
> players play longer and more consistently than their less able peers. 
(stuff deleted)
> The question is whether or not Boggs will be able to hit enough homeruns 
> to make up for the anticipated decrease in batting average. Many people 
> have essentially argued that Boggs' "talent" is the singular ability to 
> hit balls off the Green Monster. I think that Boggs' "talent" is probably 
> more general than that and that it is possible that Boggs will become more of 
> a pull hitter. 

As a long-time Boggs watcher and advocate of the Red Sox dumping him, I
have to admit that I think he's capable of making major adjustments to his
hitting style. He's done this at least three times in his career, and last
year the problem seemed to be he couldn't consistently make adjustments.
Adjusting to new pitches, pitchers, parks, and physical conditions is what
keeps a great hitter a great hitter. He certainly more or less consciously
tailored his swing to Fenway, and I don't see why he couldn't re-adjust to
Yankee Stadium. The question is whether he's a bit too old and set in his
ways to make that transition smoothly or at all - the turmoil in his life
and the Red Sox (Hriniak's departure, team fighting, etc.) over the last
two seasons must certainly have affected his ability to concentrate on
making those adjustments; but the "Platonic" Wade Boggs certainly can. I
will upgrade my evaluation of Boggs from "Above Average" to "Great" if he
can put up good numbers in the Bronx. 

If he *does* do it, I expect it will take him at least a full season. But I
would then expect him to have 4 or more excellent .300 plus seasons - maybe
not .367 but enough to make him extremely productive as a third baseman, or
at least a Yankee third sacker 8-). If he has to move to first or DH, his
value to the team will decrease precipitously - he'll have a few more
homers but many fewer doubles no matter what he does in Yankee stadium.

Oh, by the way Yankee fans (curse you all to Hades) - look for him to loop
the ball into the left-center gap a lot. I'm guessing his first adjustment
will be from the spray shots to the Monster-region a little towards the gap
where the ball can kick around, and he'll start to pull the ball more as
the season goes on.

- Matt

---------------------------------------------------------
This space left intentionally blank until spring training.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball,rec.sport.football.pro
From: sivaram@plains.NoDak.edu (The Purple Bleeder )
Subject: HAPPY 1993
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 01:23:44 GMT
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network

Happy 1993 for all the fans on rec.sport.baseball and rec.sport.
football.pro.

May the new year bring in Div. titles and
Pennants and World series and Championship for ur favorite baseball team

AND 

playoffs and Div. Championships and Conference Championships and
Superbowls for ur football team.   :-) :-)

S.H

Forever Twins & Vikes...Period!
From: 93jll@williams.edu (Jennifer Lehoczky)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Dodger News
Date: 22 Dec 1992 02:26:00 GMT
Organization: Williams College, Williamstown, MA
NNTP-Posting-Host: hancock.cc.williams.edu

In article <1992Dec21.222037.640@HQ.Ileaf.COM> raczka@HQ.Ileaf.COM (christopher raczka) writes:
>
>    IF this is an accurate statement that can be attributed to Mr Davis
>    then we can expect nothing from him this year

Davis announces every preseason that he feels better than he ever has.
His production has declined steadily.



>   Keep the LA news coming ... whats the ROSTER look like, 
>   How do the Dodgers look by position ? Where are they thin ?
>   Will the Dodgers be a .500 (or better) club in '93 ?

No. Sorry.


>Chris
>Once a Dodger fan...Always a Dodger fan!


Toby Elliott
Fan of Baseball

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: ken@wapoff.tcs.com (Ken Emery)
Subject: Re: Giants rookie pitchers, and stuff?
Organization: Teknekron Communications Inc.
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 22:19:00 GMT

In article <Dec.26.09.27.41.1992.11061@pilot.njin.net> gajarsky@pilot.njin.net (Bob Gajarsky - Hobokenite) writes:
>
>for anyone that knows..
>
>any idea if salomon torres or rick huisman are supposed to pitch
> in the majors for the giants this year?
>
>- bob gaj

I believe Torres will be given a shot.  Last year he was not ready 
at the beginning of the year and if he was not brought up they would 
not have to protect him in the expansion draft.

bye,
ken emery
From: dmccarro@sedona.intel.com (David McCarroll)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Mariner's Spring Training Location?
Date: 30 Dec 1992 21:54:06 GMT
Organization: Intel Corporation
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: volga.intel.com
Originator: dmccarro@sedona


Where will the Mariners train this spring?
I know they signed a deal with Peoria AZ, but I don't think
the facility will be ready until '94.
-- 
 Intel, Corp.
 5000 W. Chandler Blvd.
 Chandler, AZ  85226
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball