HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: camden@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu (Rany Jazayerli)
Subject: Re: 5 most BREAKABLE records
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University - HCF
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 05:53:00 GMT

In article <Nov07.014026.5991@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>, wayman@lamar.ColoState.
EDU (Jeffrey Wayman) writes...
>In article <1575.2afa9231@atlas.nafb.trw.com> dsimon@atlas.nafb.trw.com writes:
>>Okay, I've heard enough about the 419 record which will never be broken.
>>What I'm interested in is what are the most BREAKABLE records?
> 
>My opinions:  Rickey's SB record
>	      Given Denver's addition, the record for 2B's in a season
>	      3B's in a season, same reason

	Maybe I'm just stupid, but I don't see why the addition of Denver to
the National League necessarily means the breaking of the records for most 
doubles and triples in a season.

	The record for most doubles in a season, set by Earl Webb in 1934 (?),
is _67_.  For triples, it's !! 36 !! by Owen Wilson, back in 1912.  Nobody has
come anywhere close to these records in the last 50 years.  I believe that the
most doubles hit by anyone since World War II or so was 54, by Hal McRae in 
1977.  That gap of 13 is a big one to make up; I can envision someone (Edgar
Martinez?), in a year where the circumstances are perfect, hitting 60 doubles,
but 67 is a bit steep.  I'm not saying it's unbreakable, just that it would be
very, very difficult.

	As for the record for triples, well, that one probably IS unbreakable,
at least given the way that the game is played now.  The highest triple total
since around 1950 is 21, by Willie Wilson (it's no coincidence that both McRae
and Wilson played for the Royals - Royals Stadium gives a dramatic boost to
both double and triple totals).  The difference between 21 and 36 is a lot more
significant than you might think at first; it's the mathematical equivalent of
saying that no one has hit more than 36 homers since 1950.  Hitting even 30
triples is, barring a miracle, impossible under the game's conditions today.

	Furthermore, I'm not sure why playing in Denver would increase double
and triple totals at all.  I'm aware that the thinner air there would result
in the ball travelling farther, but that should only help to increase home-run
totals.  The main factor influencing doubles and triples is the presence of 
artificial turf (e.g. Royals, Busch Stadium), which allows line drives hit in
the gap to scurry past the outfielders, rather than slowed down by outfield
grass, limiting the batter to a single.  As far as I know, the stadium in Denver
(as well as the planned Coors Field) are both grass stadiums, so I don't see
why doubles and triples would be affected at all.

	Just my two cents' worth; I would appreciate some feedback on this
topic, specifically what DOES affect the frequence of doubles and triples?

> 
>I'm sure there are more; these are off the top of my head.
> 
>Jeff


		Rany Jazayerli		camden@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu
	--------------------------------------------------------------
			  David Howard for MVP!

	Gregg Jefferies for Gold Glove: he was robbed, I tell you, robbed.
From: srubio@garnet.berkeley.edu (Steven Rubio)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Greatest moments in baseball history
Date: 9 Nov 1992 05:35:56 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.berkeley.edu

Les, old buddy!

Your claim that Kirk Gibson's WS homer was "fantastic" is a bit misguided.
 The only good Dodger is a dead Dodger.

-- 
Steven who may soon be on strike

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: eebonar@sn01.sncc.lsu.edu (Dave Bonar)
Subject: Re: The value of speed (was Re: bonds in atlanta in 1993)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Reply-To: eebonar@sn01.sncc.lsu.edu
Organization: News and Views from LSU
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 18:50:15 GMT
Nntp-Posting-Host-[nntpd-23410]: sn01.sncc.lsu.edu

In article <1992Nov5.173310.2402@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, C.Thomas.Eyford.III@dartmouth.edu (C. Thomas Eyford III) writes...
> 
>If you add
>those stolen bases as part of Nixon's total bases (which, for a leadoff
>hitter, they should - bases are bases), Nixon now slugs .465 to
>Blauser's .482.  Not much difference anymore - it accounts for only 11
>total bases over a course of 650 at-bats.  Furthermore you're wasting
>Blauser's power by not having someone in front of him - he's going to
>hit solo shots all season.
> 
	You can't just add in the extra bases Nixon stole.  You also have
to subtract out the bases he took away by being caught.

	A zeroth approximation of this is to turn certain singles into doubles
and others into outs and then refigure batting average, slugging and on base
percentage.

	For Nixon this works out as follows;

Nixon ('91)
	.294/.348/.346

	Thats 134 hits, 39 walks, and 158 total bases in 456 at bats.

	Assuming that each SB converts a single into a double adds 41 bases.
	Assuming that each caught stealing converts a single into an out
		removes 18 hits and 18 total bases.

	That gives 116 hits, 39 walks, and 181 total bases in 456 at bats.

	This means Nixon was effectively a .254/.313/.397 hitter.  Hardly
an effective leadoff man and worthless when compared to Blauser's .262/.354/
458.

(btw, I realzie that this method has loads of problems.  It does give a 
reasonable measure in terms that are easy to compare with other players)

Dave
__________
Dave Bonar
eebonar@lsuvax.sncc.lsu.edu
__________

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: kuras@aiag.enet.dec.com ()
Subject: Re: John Valentin
Reply-To: kuras@aiag.enet.dec.com ()
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 12:58:32 GMT


>  realize that the minor league management has other concerns, but aren't
>  there things that New Britain (for example) could do to become more park-
>  neutral ?

Sure, there are th ings that the minor league team COULD do, but it would not
benefit the management/ownership of the minor league team, so why bother?

The minor league team usually cannot afford to retrofit the ballpark to the
specifications of the major league team. In many cases, the city owns the
ballpark, not the minor league team. And, the city will not come up with the
money to alter the park either.  On top of that, the minor league city will
sometimes change affiliations when the the current player development contract
expires. So, the team/city would need to retrofit the ballpark again, after
signing a new agreement with another MLB team.

There are standards for minor league ballparks, at all levels (A-rookie thru
Triple A) that must be adhered to by 1994 (I believe), with an additional
2 year grace period before forfeiting the franchise.  Those standards 
include field dimensions, height of outfield fences, # of parking spaces,
seating capacity, etc.  New Britain is already addressing those standards.
I have the details at home.  The Hagerstown Suns, whom also played in the
Double A Eastern League with New Britain, have already determined that the
team and/or the city cannot afford to upgrade their ballpark to meet Double A
standards.  The francise has moved to Bowie, MD.  I believe the Suns will
return as a Single A ballclub, since their ballpark is more in line with
Single A standards.

Perhaps in years to come, all ballparks will be more uniform in features and
dimensions.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: crichar@eskimo.celestial.com (Craig Richardson "who used to be bizarre")
Subject: Re: Mattingly, what a fine fielder (was: Hardly not etc.)
Organization: >>> Eskimo North (206)-FOR-EVER <<<
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 05:41:04 GMT

In article <1992Nov7.005056.25732@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Nov6.235721.7949@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca> maynard@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Roger Maynard) writes:
>>In <1992Nov06.223650.37426@watson.ibm.com> mjones@fenway.aix.kingston.ibm.com (Mike "Becoming my favourite Poster!" Jones) writes:
>>>I presume, then, that we will never see a posting from you discussing Babe
>>>Ruth, Honus Wagner, Ted Williams, Willie Mays, etc., etc., since you didn't
>>>see them play? You're foaming at the mouth again, Roger, and as usual you
>>
>>Well I certainly am not about to go around claiming that "in my opinion" 
>>Mays was a better fielder than Ruth.  Most of us would accept it though
>>without having to refer to any statistics.
>
>Was Babe Ruth a better hitter than Bob Uecker?  How do you know?

For a perfect example of "observation vs. statistics", ask Sandy Koufax
about this one...

--Craig

-- 
Craig S. Richardson (crichar@eskimo.celestial.com)
GM Pullman Sleepers (OBFBL) And suddenly I don't have to run
GM Seattle Rainiers (IFL)   I see the place where dreams and life become one
GM/Man Wis. T'wolves (IBL)  And our paths run together, trailing off in the sun
From: yankees@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu (Kenneth M Gelfand)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: 5 truly unbreakable records.
Date: 13 Nov 92 16:22:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: jhuvms.13NOV199211225660
Distribution: na
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University - HCF
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <eric.721643214@parcplace.com>, eric@parcplace.com (Eric Ching) writes...
>dsimon@atlas.nafb.trw.com writes:
> 
>>>>8) Fewest pitches thrown in an inning: 3.  many people
>>> 
>>> This one, easily the most insightful record of all time, 
>>> made me wonder.  Wouldn't that record be one?  If it's the
>>> bottom of the ninth, and the leadoff batter hits a game
>>> winning homer on the first pitch, the game is over, which 
>>> seems to mean the inning is over, with only one pitch thrown.
> 
>>I guess the original poster meant "fewest pitches thrown in a 3-out inning."
> 
>>But how about the following scenario.  The pitcher gives up a single to 
>>the leadoff batter on the first pitch.  He then balks, runners on
>>first and second, 1 pitch thrown.  He then picks off both runners.
>>The next batter pops up on the first pitch thrown to him.
> 
>>The pitcher recorded three outs and got through the inning with only 
>>two pitches.  I wonder if anything like this has ever happened.
> 
>>- Dan Simon -
> 
> 
>Now wait a second!  Since when does balking put the batter on base???
>On a pitcher's balk, the runner(s) move up, but the batter stays put
>(assuming the batter doesn't put the ball in play).
> 
> 
>Now...the *real* answer to "fewest pitches thrown in a 3-out inning"
>is ONE.
> 
>Have fun figuring out this one...Note that it's *highly* improbable,
>yet there's a possible situation in which one pitch is all you need...
> 
> 
>Eric


	Actually, it is possible (quite unlikely) that a 3-out inning could
be concluded without a pitch.  Suppose an umpire calls a runner out on a close
play for the third out of the inning, and the mananger comes out to argue.
Both teams change sides, the pitcher is ready, but the manager refuses to
leave the field.  The umpire then has the right to order the pitcher to
pitch and call every pitch a ball until the manager leaves the field.
Suppose the manager refuses to allow his pitcher to pitch.  The umpire
may begin calling balls anyhow, without any pitches being made.  So
if the manager finally leaves after 3 walks, and the pitcher picks all
3 guys off, he has retired the side without throwing a pitch.

						
	All in fun

							Kenny G
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: steph@cs.uiuc.edu (Dale Stephenson)
Subject: Re: The NL Sched
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 08:37:22 GMT

In <40798@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> demers@cs.ucsd.edu (David DeMers) writes:


>In article <1992Nov9.173335.10786@data-io.com>, dietz@parody.Data-IO.COM (Kent Dietz) writes:
>|> Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the main complaint about realignment
>|>  from Chicago Tribune folks that they did not want to play more games on
>|> the West Coast?

>...

>Ah, but with realignment, the NL was going to go to the 20-6 schedule
>rather than the 13-12.  This would give the Cubs 10 games at each
>of LA, San Diego & SF, not to mention Denver, er, Colorado.

>Now they will have 6 at each with the balance sched.

Why shouldn't Colorado and Chicago be in the same division?  The Cubs are as
close to the Rockies as anybody else.  (And a durned sight closer than
Atlanta, Cincinnati or [very unlikely] Tampa.)
-- 
Dale J. Stephenson |*| (steph@cs.uiuc.edu) |*| Grad Student Only

  "It is considered good to look wise, especially when not 
   overburdened with information" -- J. Golden Kimball
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: snichols@adobe.com (Sherri Nichols)
Subject: Re: Mattingly, what a fine fielder (was: Hardly not etc.)
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 23:31:02 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.194451.117@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca> maynard@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Roger Maynard) writes:
>In <1992Nov5.180753.839@adobe.com> snichols@adobe.com (Sherri Nichols) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Nov05.005627.159157@zeus.calpoly.edu> jplee@zeus.calpoly.edu (Jason Lee) writes:
>>>pointless.  I haven't seen that many games this year, but I think to a
>>>certain extent I'm qualified to at least discuss baseball. 
>
>>You don't have to see any games to be "qualified" to discuss baseball.  
>
>This is just about the most rediculous statement I have ever seen any member
>of the FofDT Society post.  You seem to be suggesting that one could be
>"qualified" to discuss baseball if one had never seen even one game.

Anybody is qualified to discuss baseball.  Anybody.  Even if their only
discussion of it is "What *is* the World Series, anyway?".

>descriptions of the real events.  Once again we have an example of the 
>fundamental SDCN confusion - Baseball is not statistics and statistics
>are not baseball.

Once again, we have an example of Roger Maynard's built-in prejudices.

>>I disagree.  I think in many ways, that's the worst way to judge a player.
>
>I stand corrected.  You just outdid yourself.  I guess when you want to
>know what the weather is like outside you just flick the remote to the 
>weather channel right?

I fail to see what anybody's ability to tell whether or not rain is falling
on their head has to do with their ability to tell whether or not somebody
is a good ball player.

Sherri Nichols
snichols@adobe.com

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: cjwein@watcgl.uwaterloo.ca (Chris J. Wein)
Subject: Carlos Delgado
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 01:11:23 GMT

Could someone post the details of the league ruling that stated that
Carlos Delgado does not have to protected in the upcoming expansion
draft?

Thanks,


-- 
==============================================================================
 Chris Wein                           | cjwein@watcgl.waterloo.edu 
 Computer Graphics Lab, CS Dept.      | cjwein@watcgl.uwaterloo.ca
 University of Waterloo               | (519) 888-4548
From: al1x+@andrew.cmu.edu (Amit Likhyani)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: USA today's buc list
Date: 12 Nov 92 21:13:34 GMT
Organization: Senior, Electrical and Computer Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

USA today had the best Pirate protected list in today's paper.  They
even got one I did not think of:  Mike Zimmerman.  Despite poor numbers
in AA(I believe), reports on him are that he throws gas and someday will
be a good pitcher.  

Here it is:

Wakefield - Simmons gave this one away
Belinda - You have to predict him.  He is the closer although he will be the
	       number 1 setup man next year.  I think they will get Worrell.  
	       Simmons is from the Cardinal organization and he said they 
                     will get a closer(35 saves a year guy).  You still
need Belinda.
Zimmerman - this one is not obvious, but probably true.
Tomlin - He is not going to get any better, but a 3.0 to 3.5 ERA is worth 
	     keeping around.
Cooke - They *BETTER* hang on to Cooke.  I think this guy is going to be
	   awesome.
Neagle - I don't know if this is definate, but thinking like Simmons, he
	   	    probably will be

Merced - He is the first baseman and the Pirates are all of a sudden 
                    running out of left handed bats.  I still think the
Pirates are going
	      to get a power hitting left handed hitting first baseman and 
	      Merced will be in the cold.
Garcia -  could be starting shortstop.  A no brainer.  Simmons is on record
	    as saying Garcia will be protected.
Young - another no brainer

King - again, thinking like Simmons, this is what they will do.

Al Martin - he is the starting left fielder

AVS - if Bonds goes to the AL, he is the reining best NL outfielder by OPS.

Pennyfeather - I don't know about this one.  THe man cannot hit.

Cole - I guess you have to protect him.  Alex Cole as a left or right
fielder really reduces the power potential of a team.


The notable exceptions are Slaught, Z.  Smith, and Jackson.  I think you
have to protect Slaught and Z.  Smith.  Someone may take a shot on Zane
or even Jackson.  I would unprotect Pennyfeather and Zimmerman and
protect Slaught and Smith.  Hell I might unprotect King and hang on to
Jackson.  If you leave King out there, you know he will be the first
player taken because he is 28 and has some name recognition and played
well after the all star break.  This way, you can plan around King being
taken and virtually protect 18.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: jsosa@encore.com (Joe Sosa)
Subject: Expansion Draft Coin-Toss
Reply-To: jsosa@encore.com (Joe Sosa)
Organization: Encore Computer Corp
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 13:49:31 GMT
News-Software: NN 6.4.16

With the expansion draft little under two weeks away on November 17, Major
League officials have announced that the coin toss to determine which 
expansion team will have the #1 pick will occur during halftime of the Monday 
Night Football game including the Miami Dolphins and the Buffalo Bills on 
November 16 in Joe Robbie Stadium, Miami.

I guess that gives the Marlins the Home-Field Advantage!!

Go Marlins!! (And the #1 selection is....)

Joe Sosa

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   ----- ----  /--- |  Joe Sosa -- jsosa@encore.com -- Encore Computer Corp.
    /   /---   \    |  Go Dolphins, AFC East, AFC, Super Bowl...the road to #1
----   ----  ---/   |  Go Gators, SEC Repeat!!  Beat them Semi-holes!!!
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: dave@clark.dgim.doc.ca (Dave Thompson)
Subject: A.L. Cy Young
Organization: Communications Canada
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 23:43:15 GMT

Just heard on the radio that Dennis Eckersley was named the American
League Cy Young winner.

Dave Thompson 

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: hasch@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu (Bruce M Hasch)
Subject: Re: Cy Young Voting Results
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University - HCF
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 22:49:00 GMT

In article <11NOV199217240089@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu>, camden@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu (Rany Jazayerli) writes...
>	Could anyone out there please post the complete, final results of the
>AL Cy Young voting (and National League when it becomes available)?  I would
>really appreciate it.
> 
>	I'm not forcing anyone to do it, so don't complain and tell me to do it
>myself.  If you don't want to do it, fine.  Hopefully, though, someone will.
> 

	Here We Go!!

	1991 AL Cy Young Award Voting:

	PLAYER		1st	2nd	3rd	Total
	Eckersley,Oak.	 19	 3	 3	 107
	JMcDowell,Chi.	 2	 12	 5	  51
	Clemens,Bos.	 4	 7 	 7	  48
	Mussina,Bal.	 2	 4	 4	  26
	Morris,Tor.	 1(!)	 1(!)	 2(!)     10(!)
	Brown,Tex.	 	 1	 6	  9
	Nagy,Cle.	 		 1	  1
	Acker,Sea.			 1	  1  

	Living proof that at least four sportswriters should be fired, and
one should be shot at dawn...(Although some of us would like to get rid of
A LOT more than that... :-))



>	Thanx in advance.
> 
> 
>	Rany Jazayerli			camden@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu
>	---------------------------------------------------------
>			David Howard for MVP!
> 
>	Kevin Appier: If he didn't finish in the top 5, it's a damn shame.

	Hell, he didn't even get a VOTE.  I agree, a travesty.  But Jack Morris 
won twenty games.  I mean, that's all that matters, right?? (Insert Giant-Sized
Acme Brand Smilie...)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce "Slower than Sam Horn" Hasch		hasch@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu

	In a very childish sort of way, I'm extremely glad to see Tampa Bay
get shafted again.  Although Candlestick Park is a monstrosity, the way in 
which Tampa Bay has actively tried to steal franchises from other cities is
disgraceful.  Of course, as an ex-Baltimore Colts fan, you can probably see why
I've got this attitude...
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: niguma@ug.cs.dal.ca (Gordon Niguma)
Subject: Comparing Eckersley vs. noname reliever
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 22:16:05 GMT

  This post continues my "Don't vote for Eckersley for Cy Young" campaign as
I try to push for Mussina, Clemens or Appier or someone else for Cy Young.
Yes, I do hate Dennis Eckersley. As a Blue Jay fan, I feel obligated to after
the run-ins in 1989 playoffs when he yelled at Gaston and supposedly challenged
him to a fight after Gaston alleged that Eck used sandpaper in the 1989 playoffs
and of course this year after he did the "glare" at the Toronto bench after 
getting out Sprague (that's OK we certainly got you back you SOB; in your 
face!!). But I digress.....
  Eckersley's performance wasn't clearly the best performance by a relief
pitcher this year. Roberto Hernandez of the White Sox, if you look at the fine
print, certainly deserved worthy consideration, let's see

     G  IP  H  R  ER  BB  SO  WP  H/9  K/9  BB/9  SB-CS  LHB  RHB  BA  OBA  SA
A       71 45 15  13  20  68  2   5.7  8.6   2.5   4-4   187  175 180  249 272
B       80 62 17  17  11  93  0   7.0 10.5   1.2   9-1   262  159 211  242 306
A  ERA = 1.65 
B ERA  = 1.91

  Well I guess you can tell that player B is Eck due to that incredible BB/9
rate. Of course Roberto Hernandez did poorly in the limited save opportunities
he got (12 of 16) while Eck was, well Eck (51 of 54 converts) and Eck did
pitch more innings and probably more important innings than Hernandez did (who
I assume did some mop up duty early as he was behind guys like Thigpen and
Radinsky earlier in the year).
  But as far as actual performance when they were in there, I think Hernandez
was better than Eck. The OBA was a mere 7 points higher while the SA was
notably lower than the ex-alcoholic (cheap shot!) at a 34 point difference.
When you put park adjustments into it Hernandez inches closer to Eckersley,
perhaps enough to compensate for the 9 less innings he pitched? He also kept
better control of the running game than Eck.
  I'd like to add that I probably would take Eck's performance over Hernandez's
but the performance is VERY CLOSE, but Eck got more "RBI" type opportunities and
cashed the runners home at an outstanding rate.
  Ironic how Eckersley will get tonnes of votes for Cy Young, Jack Morris will
get some and Roberto Hernandez will get the same amount as Tim Leary. Well,
it's not ironic, it's a damn shame.

						Gord Niguma
						(fav player: Jhn Olerud)

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: tedward@cs.cornell.edu (Edward [Ted] Fischer)
Subject: Prediction: Red Sox get reamed
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 19:50:14 GMT


I predict that the Red Sox will lose more talent in the expansion
draft than any three other teams.  How can this be, you ask?  The Red
Sox don't *have* more than 15 players worth protecting!?!?!

This is true.  However from all reports, they are only protecting
about half of the players who *are* worth protecting.  The rest of the
First Fifteen is filled with guys like Quantrill (eh...), Greenwell
(ugh!), Zupcic (BLEAH!), and Pena (WHY????).

The Red Sox are desperately hanging on to their overpaid,
underproducing veterans, and this will cost them *every* *scrap* of
talent in their system.

<sigh>
-Valentine
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball