HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: millerm@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Mikemoe)
Subject: Cy Young...2 to the same metropolitan area????
Summary: Has a city ever won 2 Cy Youngs in one year
Reply-To: millerm@oakhill.sps.mot.com
Organization: Motorola Semiconductor Products Sector
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 13:20:02 GMT

With the very real chance that Chicago could win both Cy Young
awards, I was curious if any metropolitan area has done this before?
Or, how about state?



---
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| Michael Miller   millerm@oakhill.sps.mot.com                 |
| (512) 891-8582   Motorola - Semiconductors  Austin, TX       |
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| We tend to scoff at the beliefs of the ancients. But we      |
| can't scoff at them personally, to their faces, and this is  |
| what annoys me. - Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey               |
+--------------------------------------------------------------+

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: claudius@leland.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu)
Subject: Re: NL ROY: More Fuel for Debate
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 92 22:01:29 GMT

In article <6725@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> genetic+@pitt.edu (Dr. Dave) writes:

>According to this, replacing Bonds with an average LF for Bonds's plate
>appearances would have cost the Pirates about 78 runs, which is real close
>to the number you give above.
>
>305 outs @ 7.8 RC/27 = 88 runs, which is a full 15% overestimate.
>
>If you think my RC calculations are flawed, could you please go through the
>same sequence of comparisons using your own?

Let me see...  I am really weak in mathematics, so pardon me if I make a
mistake. :-)

Using NL average, for simplicity sake...  (Sep. 30 Baseball Weekly)

Bonds' RC/27:		12.96
Average LF's RC/27:	4.75
Expected difference:	(12.96-4.75) * (319 outs/27) = 97 runs

Pirates' RC:		714.5
Pirates' RC - Bonds:	579.6
Pirates' RC - Bonds + Average, pro-rated to Bonds' playing time:
			653.0

So Bonds would be worth, under this calculation, just 61 runs, a rather big
difference.

However, I wanted to make sure that it's wasn't just the peculiarity in the
Pirates' team.  So I did it with Darren Daulton as well:

Daulton's RC/27:	8.30
Average C's RC/27:	4.03
Expected Difference:	60.3

Phillies' RC:		675.1
RC - Daulton:		575.4
RC - Daulton + Average:	632.9
Difference:		42.2

So I guess your observation is right.

However, there is another point that I want to raise:

During these calculations, we both assumed that the replacement players will
get the same number of PAs as the actual players.  However, what if that is
not the case?  Certainly Bonds added to the number of plate appearances his
team got by having such a high OBP, and Daulton also did this to a lesser
extent.  So, if you replace them with average players, you lose PAs from both
team totals and the average players' individual totals, no?  And what would
be the effect of that?  For example, if I use Eddie Gaedel as a leadoff hitter,
I would assume that he would, by prolonging the innings in which he bats,
increase the number of PAs the rest of the team gets *in addition* to his
monstrous OBP.  If I replace Gaedel with an average hitter, I can no longer
assume that that hitter will get the same number of PAs that he gets, and the
team totals would likely go down too.  Can that effect compensate for the
apparent discrepancies above?

===============================================================================
GO CALIFORNIA ANGELS!
===============================================================================
Nelson Lu (claudius@leland.stanford.edu)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: snichols@adobe.com (Sherri Nichols)
Subject: Re: season over for SDCNs?
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 22:26:26 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.215135.28474@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca> 91287041@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Roger Maynard) writes:
>I guess now that the regular season is over all the stathead types
>are going to be turning their attentions elsewhere.  It is the larger
>sample size of the regular season, after all, which determines the
>"best" teams in baseball.  As we have been told, time and time again,
>the short series tells us only which team is the "luckiest" and that
>is surely nothing to get worked up over is it? 

Once again, Roger shows that he doesn't get it.

>Are the 4 million fans that have paid to see the Jays all fools to 
>want to see the Jays go all the way this year?  Shouldn't they just
>be satisfied to know that over the long haul their team tied for the
>overall best record in the AL?  If the Jays should get "lucky" and
>actually win this year wouldn't the Canadian population just be
>displaying their lack of knowledge of the essence of baseball if they
>were to go nuts?  The big party should have happened after they won the
>mini-pennant right?  Short series doesn't prove nothing does it?  

Nobody on this net ever said that the playoffs and World Series weren't
exciting and fun.  Nobody on this net ever said that winning the World
Series isn't or shouldn't be the goal of every team.  

>Well guys, if the Blue Jays do go all the way and beat Atlanta and win
>the whole thing and you still don't think that they are the "best" team
>in baseball then who gives a rat's ass who the "best" team in baseball 
>is?

Lots of people do.  Because the team that is the "best" stands a better
chance of getting back to the World Series, and doing it all again.

Sherri Nichols
snichols@adobe.com
From: dahl@email.sp.unisys.com (Larry Dahl)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Bob Uecker
Date: 25 Sep 1992 16:26:50 -0500
Organization: Paramax -  Eagan, MN

dlee@oasys.dt.navy.mil (David Lee) writes:
> I suspect that his appearance in the early Miller Lite beer commercials
> didn't hurt him either.. He built his reputation much like Rodney Dangerfield
> in his "I don't get no respect" theme.. Bob Uecker is associated with
> the "top row" seats at baseball games or the Uecker section.. Always
> getting the cheap seats that nobody else wants...

I first started hearing about Bob Uecker back when Howard Cosell was
still on Monday Night Football.  They'd show some wackily dressed bozo
in the stands, and Howard would gasp "It's Bob Uecker!"  Then one night
the cameras picked out a fellow wearing a T-shirt that said 
'Bob Uecker'.  Howard started laughing and then said "That is NOT Bob
Uecker!"
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: ken@mizar.tcs.com (Ken Emery)
Subject: Re: Blue Jay musings... A's vs lefties
Organization: Teknekron Communications Inc.
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 20:32:26 GMT

In article <Sep.30.15.16.13.1992.9707@pilot.njin.net> gajarsky@pilot.njin.net (Bob Gajarsky) writes:
>well, if i were the jay  manager, i'd start cone in 1, 4, 7 (if necessary)
> 
> but of course jack morris is great.  of course.        sheesh.
>
>
>anyhow, that wasn't your question.  the a's do much better against lefties than righties.
>
At one point (just before the last road trip) the A's were 26 - 8 vs 
lefthanded starters.  I believe Valera (of the angels) is lefthanded 
(I could be wrong) and he beat the A's three times.  I'm just hoping that 
Atlanta makes the world series if the A's make it so they can feast on 
all those lefthanded starters.
>
>i don't have this year's stats in front of me, but too many years of
> table baseball leagues made me remember that rickey is a god against
> lefties , lansford is pretty good against lefties, mcgwire is
> better against lefties, so is steinbach, and if dave henderson comes
> back, he's much better against lefties as well.
>
>baines can't hit lefties, and i don't know about ruben, or any
> of the younger players.
>
>- bob gaj

bye,
ken emery
internet: ken@tcs.com
From: epp@mala.bc.ca (Lorne Epp)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Why bother to watch the World Series?
Date: 2 Oct 92 19:00:22 -0700
Organization: Malaspina College

In article <1992Oct2.184114.22491@adobe.com>, snichols@adobe.com (Sherri Nichols) writes:
> In article <1992Oct2.175240.14804@leland.Stanford.EDU> daveshao@leland.stanford.edu (David Shao) writes:
> 
> But divisional play has existed since 1969.  Why did you cut it off at
> 1987?  
> 
>>Without even noticing what the teams did this season, all I have to
>>know is that the Braves won their division in order for me to predict
>>with confidence that they will win the World Series.  
> 
> This system wouldn't have worked very well for most years.  In fact, it
> would have failed to predict the correct winner 15 times out of 23 times.
> Yes, it would have predicted the last 5 in a row.  But it would have had a
> stretch from 1971 to 1984 where it failed to predict the correct winner a
> single time.
> 
Although I think David Shao overstated his case, he has a good point.
(Here I reproduce his home field advantage table)

Home advantage:

             LCS            WS
             -------        --
even years:  AL East        NL
             NL West        
	     
odd years:   AL west        AL
             NL east    

If this table is correct, it means that an Eastern division team (in
either league) can never have home field advantage in both the LCS and
WS, while Western division teams can.  If there is any advantage at all
to playing at home, this scheme is unfair to Eastern division teams.
It's possible that the baseball powers-that-be didn't notice this when 
they came up with this plan.

What is needed is a four-year cycle:

             LCS            WS
             -------        --
year 1       AL East        NL
             NL West        
	     
year 2       AL west        AL
             NL east    

year 3       AL East        AL
             NL West        
	     
year 4       AL west        NL
             NL east    

That way each division gets a crack at the double home advantage
once every four years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lorne Epp                                               epp@mala.bc.ca
From: lbr@holos0.uucp (Len Reed)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Bonds is awesome (was AL MVP)
Date: 25 Sep 92 20:40:58 GMT
Organization: Holos Software, Inc.

In article <1992Sep24.220733.19295@m.cs.uiuc.edu> steph@cs.uiuc.edu (Dale Stephenson) writes:

>Barry Bonds is the best player in the league, period.  Though I certainly
>hope his postseason woes continue this year.

Well, I for one, don't.  And I'm a huge Braves' fan.  Obviously I want
the Braves to win the NLCS this year, and if that means Barry stinks
again, I'll take it.  But I'd rather beat the Pirates near the top of
their game.  I'd like to see it go 7 games, have Bonds be the MVP with
4 homers and hitting .370.  And having the Bucs lose anyway.  What
could be better than the Braves in the W.S. *and* shutting up all the
fans who claim Bonds can't play in the clutch?  Of course they'll say,
"Well, if he'd hit .410 with 6 homers...."
From: paul@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Paul R Krueger)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: player of the month
Date: 2 Oct 1992 02:50:33 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4
Originator: paul@csd4.csd.uwm.edu

   Just heard that Frank Thomas was named the player of the month and Cal
   Eldred the pitcher of the month in the AL. Eldred went 6-0 with a 1.17
   ERA.

   --salty
From: g_waugaman@nac.enet.dec.com (Glenn R. Waugaman)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Another surprise from the media
Date: 6 Oct 92 22:40:52 GMT
Article-I.D.: nntpd.1992Oct6.214803.13439
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


In article <1992Oct05.163426.22486@watson.ibm.com>, mjones@fenway.aix.kingston.ibm.com (Mike Jones) writes...
>In article <GRABINER.92Oct4173404@birkhoff.harvard.edu> grabiner@math.harvard.edu (David Grabiner) writes:
>>
>>From Bob Ryan's column in the Boston Globe, discussing Wade Boggs' value
>>as a hitter, partly to speculate whether he would have been more
>>valuable if he had tried to hit for power:
>>
>>"Of all the statistics that baseball uses to measure offensive
>>performance, the two more useful are on-base percentage and slugging
>>percentage."
> 
>Oh, David! You undersell the man. I'm sure that at this very moment there's
>a kangaroo court going on in the Globe newsroom with Peter Gammons as judge
>and Nick Cafardo as prosecutor. The charge: heresy. Exhibit A: the quote
>above. Exhibit B, another quote from the article, follows:

This is no fluke.  Bob Ryan is good.  Damn good.  And he's not even a 
baseball writer, nor has he ever been one.  He's the only sportswriter or
newscaster in Boston that I've ever seen slap Red Sox fans around when
they start wailing about choking and failure and whatnot every time a big
game approaches.  Contrast Ryan to Dan Shaughnessy, who wrote a
best-selling book about stupid coincidences around Babe Ruth's birthdate
and how such nonsense foretells the future (and it sold!). 

---
Glenn Waugaman
Digital Equipment Corporation
Littleton, MA
g_waugaman@nac.enet.dec.com
---
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: claudius@leland.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu)
Subject: Re: Sheffield is NL MVP
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 92 23:27:44 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.182056.1015@island.COM> fester@island.COM (Mike Fester) writes:
>
>Now, it's no more "absurd" than saying "the problem with SLG is that it doesn't
>include walks", now is it?

It is.

OBP is supposed to measure how often a player gets on base.

SLG is supposed to measure how much a player moves the runners on base.

But the problem is that SLG doesn't do that; the fact that it doesn't include
walks, which moves runners sometimes, makes it problematic.

You mentioned that OBP gives a walk and a homer equal weight, but what else do
you expect it to do?  It is *not* a measure of total offense; it is only
supposed to measure how often a player gets on base; no more, no less.

===============================================================================
GO CALIFORNIA ANGELS!
===============================================================================
Nelson Lu (claudius@leland.stanford.edu)
From: istre@ricevm1.rice.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Astros
Date: 30 Sep 92 19:41:02 GMT
Organization: Rice University

In article <1992Sep28.162138.1226@ccsvax.sfasu.edu>
z_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
 
>        Shortstop is a different situation. Yelding simply doesn't have the OBA
>to be an everyday majorleaguer. Cedeno has the SLG, but his OBA is worse than
>Yelding's, and he is slower on the basepaths and is pretty bad defensively. And
>I don't see Ramirez as the starting ss...
>
It might interest you to know that the Astros have sent their first pick of
the draft, Cal-Fullerton 3rd baseman Phil Nevin to their instruction league
to learn the shortstop postion. That is very smart because Ken Caminitti all
but owns the 3rd base spot with the 'stros and has been very solid both in
the field and at the plate. With Bagwell at 1st base and Biggio at second,
the 'stros stand have a very solid infield for years to come once they get
the shortstop postion nailed down.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Ugliest player (res.)
From: mlbruce@husc11.harvard.edu (Matthew Bruce)
Date: 7 Oct 92 00:28:07 GMT

CRAAARB@YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu writes:

>In what is surely my favorite lapsed discussion in reading through old files (I
>'m new to the newsgroup), I'd like to nominate John Candeleria for the ugliest
>baseball player of all time, and no one, not even Willie McGee, comes close.
>  - Capital

Not even Zane Smith?
>--
>"He throws a mean forkball, complemented with a spoonball and a knifeball,
>bringing new meaning to the phrase, 'setting the table'"- SI on Ruben Dario Per
>ez
> 
>
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: marwood@csri.toronto.edu (Simon J. Marwood)
Subject: Re: Expos logo
Organization: CSRI, University of Toronto
Date: 29 Sep 92 02:05:50 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.181906.861@mala.bc.ca> epp@mala.bc.ca (Lorne Epp) writes:
>In article <CB.92Sep28173954@tamarack13.timbuk>, cb@tamarack13.timbuk (Chris Brewster) writes:
>> 
>> The thread about the A's logo has emboldened me to make this confession:
>> the Expos logo makes no sense to me (that squiggly thing, not the way
>> they write the word "expos").  Maybe it's a Rorschach test: the meaning
>> 
>
>I think it's supposed to be a big multicolored "M" with a little red "e".
>It's a pretty sad logo.  What I want to know is what made them call the
>team "Expos"?  Obviously it's because of Expo 67, but why did they think
>anybody would care about that 25 (or 50 or 100) years from then?

It's in fact a capital M, with a lower case "e" and then a lower case "b",
for Montreal Expos baseball.

What is the point of the question regarding the team name?? Why does
anyone call their stadium "Olympic Stadium" (ie Montreal, several
European cities). Why name stadiums after someone? Who cares who they are
after they're dead? Why call a team "the Canucks" ??? :)

Simon

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Simon Marwood		 | "Is this the train to Desert Moon?" was all she said
marwood@csri.toronto.edu | But I knew I'd heard that stranger's voice before...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: tedward@cs.cornell.edu (Edward [Ted] Fischer)
Subject: Re: Morris: more fuel for this debate
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 13:53:17 GMT

In article <BvKnKz.J9L@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu> mlstocku@zeno13.math.UWaterloo.ca () writes:
>
> My opinion of Morris is this, and having watched just about every
>game he's pitched this year, and going to games in person in which
>he's pitched I think my opinion is valid.  He has the uncanny ability
>to bear down in big games. No question about it, Morris _is_ the big
>game pitcher. I know it sounds corny, but it is entirley true.  Morris
>receives all of this run support comparitively to say Key, purely
>because of his gamemanship on the mound. Players respond to this
>atmosphere he creates when he is pitching.

Okay, just one question.  Why has he never shown this talent before?
Has he only developed it in the last couple of years?  Because if you
look at him over his career, he has received no better run support
than his teammates (though he was on a lot of good offensive teams,
and so that run support was still pretty good).

>His era, when it has really counted, has been miniscule.

Partially true, but also partially selective memory I think.  You tend
to forget those games which might have been important had he won,
where he gave up 4+ runs.  Like one game just a couple weeks ago.
It's really not a fair study unless you have some objective formula
for the importance of a game, or you designate a game as important
beforehand.

Cheers,
-Valentine
-- 
Make outs, not walks!					tedward@cs.cornell.edu
Clemens four Cy Young!
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: gidi@Hilbert.Stanford.EDU (Gidi Avrahami)
Subject: Re: Better than Runs
Organization: Brotherhood Of Breath
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 16:38:02 GMT

>>I hope this is sufficiently clear by now.  Again, does
>>anyone have the distribution of runs/inning for either
>>league?

I posted some numbers a few weeks ago, but I guess nobody noticed
(except Valentine?).  These numbers are taken from a DB of line-scores
from about two recent months in the majors:


670 games, 12096 innings.
---------------------
Innings by score:
  0:  8914  (0.737)
  1:  1809  (0.150)
  2:   750  (0.062)
  3:   371  (0.031)
  4:   167  (0.014)
  5:    45  (0.004)
  6:    25  (0.002)
  7:     8  (0.001)
  8:     6  (0.000)
  9:     1  (0.000)
Average inning score: 0.46
---------------------
Winning scores:
  1:    16  (0.024)
  2:    42  (0.063)
  3:    81  (0.121)
  4:   102  (0.152)
  5:   105  (0.157)
  6:    91  (0.136)
  7:    78  (0.116)
  8:    56  (0.084)
  9:    42  (0.063)
 10:    21  (0.031)
 11:     8  (0.012)
 12:    10  (0.015)
 13:     1  (0.001)
 14:     5  (0.007)
 15:     5  (0.007)
 16:     5  (0.007)
 19:     1  (0.001)
 22:     1  (0.001)
Average winning score: 5.81
---------------------
Losing scores:
  0:    93  (0.139)
  1:   140  (0.209)
  2:   150  (0.224)
  3:   114  (0.170)
  4:    63  (0.094)
  5:    55  (0.082)
  6:    32  (0.048)
  7:     9  (0.013)
  8:     8  (0.012)
  9:     3  (0.004)
 10:     1  (0.001)
 11:     2  (0.003)
Average losing score: 2.52
---------------------
Winning margins:
  1:   186  (0.278)
  2:   139  (0.207)
  3:   105  (0.157)
  4:    86  (0.128)
  5:    50  (0.075)
  6:    36  (0.054)
  7:    24  (0.036)
  8:    15  (0.022)
  9:     6  (0.009)
 10:     6  (0.009)
 11:     8  (0.012)
 12:     3  (0.004)
 13:     3  (0.004)
 15:     2  (0.003)
 20:     1  (0.001)
Average winning margin: 3.29
---------------------
From: niguma@ug.cs.dal.ca (Gordon Niguma)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Morris Season begins Wednesday
Date: 4 Oct 92 16:24:28 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada


  Now that the Jays have clinched they will turn their eyes to Jack Morris to 
duplicate his heroics as he did in last year's playoffs. Although I believe his
contribution was minimal to this year's Jays (although he did contribute) the
five million dollars is now on the line......this is what Gillick and Beeston
and the Jays brass signed him for.
  Interestingly enough his mound opponent for ALCS game number one is Dave
Stewart, another one of `those' winners and big game pitchers. Well I guess   
we'll see a 10-8 game or something.....


						Gord Niguma
						(fav player : John Olerud)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell)
Subject: Pitching is 70% of baseball?
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 01:33:17 GMT

In article <carl.717641419@warper.jhuapl.edu> carl@warper.jhuapl.edu (Carl Lamy) writes:
>>but anyhow.  i'd like to hear from the people who believe that
>>pitching
>> is 75% of the game during the regular season.  explain WHY
>> you believe it.  it might prove interesting.
>
>>- bob gaj
>
>This one's easy. Good pitching is better than good hitting. 

Which is why the California Angels and Chicago Cubs have been so
dominant this year.

>A good hitter
>gets out 70% of the time, because the pitcher gets him out (or the batter
>makes a mistake, etc.). 

Nitpick: the *average* hitter gets out 67% of the time.  The great ones
(Bonds, Thomas) get out 55% of the time.

>So a pitcher dominates a hitter, even a good
>one, 70+% of the time. Add to this that a pitcher, if he's doing well, can
>often locate his pitches so that, even if a hitter gets a hit, he hits it
>to a particular place where the defense is playing (i.e., to right, on the
>ground, etc.). So, even when the hitter gets a hit, he's hitting it where
>the it hurts the defense the least, so that runners can't advance more than
>one base, and runs can't score, etcetera. Clear domination on the part of
>pitching over hitting.

Then why do batters still make it onto base 24-27% of the time against
a Ryan, Clemens, or Eckersley?
-- 
           .. . . .  .  .   .    .     .     .    .   .  .  . . . ..
          ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
         the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637