HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: Stupidest rule in baseball (perhaps a new one)
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 15:55:27 GMT

In <1992Dec13.092848.370@walter.cray.com>, Maynard Brandt writes:

>My apologies if this replicates an earlier post.  To me the dumbest rule
>has always been:

>With 0 or 1 strikes on a batter, a foul ball is a strike.  However, except
>for a bunt, a foul ball with 2 strikes on a batter is *NOT* a strike.

Tell that to Luke Appling.

>If it isn't a strike the last time, why should a foul ball ever be included
>in the ball-strike count?

>I remember someone commenting on a TV broadcast that at one time foul
>balls weren't included in the ball-strike count.  Does anyone on the
>net know if this is true or false and, if it is true, when the rule
>changed?

I think was in the late 1880s or early 1890s.  As far as I know, "modern base-
ball" has always used the same rule.  I could be wrong, though.

>If it was true during Babe Ruth's or Walter Johnson's time, it just may
>change some net opinions concerning Ruth's hitting ability or Johnson's
>strikeout total when making comparisons to current players.

Rule changes and their effects can profoundly impact the game.

Really, as far as current pitching/hitting rules, nothing drastic has changed
since the pitchers mound was moved from 50 feet to 60' 6" in 1893.  This
changed the game drastically for years--consider the following statistics from
the year 1894:

* Boston's Hugh Duffy hit .438--the highest ever without counting walks as
  hits--as well as 18 HR and 145 RBI for a Triple Crown season.
* The entire league batted .309 and the average *pitcher* around .250.
* The entire Philadelphia outfield hit over .400 (3 starters, 1 reserve):
  Billy Hamilton .404, Sam Thompson .404, Ed Delahanty .407, Tuck Turner .416.
  The Phils as a *team* batted .349 that year.
* Every starting non-pitcher for the Baltimore Orioles batted over .300.
* Out of 12 teams, the worst hitting team (Louisville) batted .269.  The next
  worst team in batting (Cincinnati) came in at .286.  Overall, eight of the
  twelve teams batted over .300.
* The league *average* ERA was 5.32.
* Walks were twice as common as strikeouts in 1894--even though the 4 ball and
  3 strike rules were already in effect by then.  Some players only struck out
  4 or 5 times in around 500 at bats.  If Mighty Casey struck out in 1894, he
  should be mighty embarrassed...

This is a good reminder to us (especially concerning the Pie Traynor debate)
that we need to keep the season/era in mind when determining the quality of
a season.  A .270 season stunk in 1894; it was pretty damn good in 1968.

Not until around 1898 did the pitchers really start to catch up again.  And I
thought that 1930 was outrageous...

By the way--was there a cause for the outrageous hitting in 1930?  Was there a
juiced-up ball a la 1987?


Tim Irvin
******************************************************************************
"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to
 teenage boys." -- P.J. O'Rourke
From: gajarsky@pilot.njin.net (Bob Gajarsky - Hobokenite)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Wearing Out Pitchers
Date: 18 Dec 92 16:09:05 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Somewhere in Hoboken

my guess about why hershiser didn't complain abou;the
 way lasorda used him?

selling the soul to the devil.  BECAUSE lasorda used him in
 strange situation, it can be argued, the dodgers won the world
 series....

- bob gaj
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: macmib@aix.rpi.edu (Brian Edward Macmillan)
Subject: Re: marge.
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 05:52:41 GMT

In article <92346.005040RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu> <RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu> writes:
>
>  "you know, you can say what you want about marge schott, you
>   can hiss her, you can boo her, but she's still a damn good
>   looking lady."
            ^^^^
	the word was man.

>                              -dave letterman.
>                               maybe a little paraphrased.
>

Mac


Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: v_siede@pavo.concordi[Ca.ca <Kaldis, Bill)
Subject: Re: Cost per win
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Concordia University
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 03:35:00 GMT

In article <1412@netxcom.netx.com>, jwc@netxcom.netx.com (Jeff Comer) writes...
>More hot stove fodder.... This chart takes each of MLB's 26 teams, and lists
>their payroll figures, their wins in 1992, and how much they paid for each win.
>The salary figures are 2nd-hand; please advise if you see an error.
> 
>1992 Teams, Payrolls, Wins, and Cost-per-Win
>--------------------------------------------
> 
>Team    '92 Payroll+Rank   Wins+Rank   CostPerWin+Rank
>----    ----------------   ---------   ---------------
>CLE     $ 9,323,339    1    76   16    $122,675.51   1
>HOU     $14,816,500    2    81   13    $182,919.75   2
>MTL     $16,050,854    3    87    9    $184,492.57   3

I think each team's payroll and wins should reflect replacement value.  In 
essence, the alternative a team has is to go out and sign up a bunch of 
decent six-year minor league free agents at minimum major league salary.  
Let's assume that therefore this alternative costs $2.5 million (24 players 
at $105,000 each).  Now let's also assume that such a team would probably 
win only 54 games.

Therefore, Cleveland spent an additional $6.8 mill ($9.3-$2.5) to win an 
"extra" 21 games over replacement-level.  Calculated this way here are the 
rankings in the previous "gross cost per win".

Team           New Cost per W    New Rank  Old Rank 

Cleveland       $309,243            1         1   
Houston         $455,426            3         2
Montreal        $410,026            2         3  salary level up in '93
Baltimore       $609,821            4         4
Minnesota       $683,184            5         5
Milwaukee       $721,925            7         6
San Diego       $896,236           10         7
Texas         $1,030,804           13         8
Atlanta         $702,549            6         9
St.Louis        $934,625           12        10
Chicago (AL)    $863,604            9        11
Philadelphia  $1,426,958           18        12
Pittsburgh      $789,254            8        13
Detroit       $1,222,722           16        14
Cincinnati      $912,766           11        15
Seattle       $2,382,833           25        16  franchise is adrift
Chicago (NL)  $1,238,736           17        17
Kansas City   $1,636,033           20        18
California    $1,670,259           21        19
New York (AL) $1,471,922           19        20
San Francisco $1,706,700           22        21
Oakland       $1,070,468           14        22  cost-effective year
Toronto       $1,109,694           15        23  cost effective year
Boston        $2,079,930           23        24
New York (NL) $2,304,963           24        25
Los Angeles   $4,392,241           26        26  fire Fred Claire!       

The surprise was how poor Seattle turned out when compared to replacement 
level.  I didn't realize salary level was so high. No wonder they dumped 
Mitchell.

Bill Kaldis
Concordia University


Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: scott@asd.com (Scott Barman)
Subject: Re: All-time Red Sox team
Organization: American Software Development Corp., West Babylon, NY
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 20:01:54 GMT

In article <1992Dec10.195508.23031@watson.ibm.com> mjones@fenway.aix.kingston.ibm.com (Mike Jones) writes:
>To sort of paper over the angst I've gotten from Lou Abbott's (I know, it's
>spelled "Gorman", but trust me, it's PRONOUNCED "Abbott") sabotage of the
>Sox in the last month, I've been giving some thought to happier days....
>
>It seems like there's a really good first team, but my bench is kind of
>weak. Who am I forgetting?
>
>1B  Jimmie Foxx
>	George Scott (possibly Walt Dropo - Cecil Cooper didn't blossom until
>	              they traded him to the Brewers, and Yaz didn't play here
>				  enough.)

Gee... not Bill Buckner?!!  :-)  :-)   (sorry... I couldn't resist)

>OF  Jim Rice
>	Tris Speaker
>	Ted Williams  (These three start. Speaker in CF, flip a coin for RF.)
>	Carl Yaztrzemski 
>	Dwight Evans  (Tough choice between Dewey and Fred Lynn. Honorable
>	               mention to Reggie Smith and Frank Duffy).

I don't know.  Seems to me one would want Yaz, the last AL Triple Crown
winner, over Rice.  I know I would!!

>SP  Cy Young
>	Roger Clemens
>	Lefty Grove
>	Smoky Joe Wood
>	Luis Tiant

I think the BoSox had a pretty good pitcher who helped them win their
last World Series.  I don't know... wasn't it some guy named Ruth?

-- 
scott barman			| <This space intentionally left blank>
scott@asd.com			|
 (I can barely speak for myself, you expect me to speak for my employer??)
From: andrew@marie.physik.tu-berlin.de (Andrew Shields)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Phil Plantier traded, Boggs out the door?
Date: 16 Dec 1992 14:28:23 GMT
Organization: ZRZ/TU-Berlin
NNTP-Posting-Host: marie.physik.tu-berlin.de
Keywords: Why, why, why, why?

In <39k22!f@rpi.edu> tracyj@hall103.its.rpi.edu (Jeffrey Allan Tracy) writes:

>As a loyal fan of the Red Sox, I have put up with everything from losing the
>World Series in '86, which, by the way, was the fault of one Bob Stanley, not
>Bill Buckner as most of you in the baseball world like to think,

I never thought it was Buckner's fault, or Bob Stanley's.  It was
Joe Morgan's fault.  He left Schiraldi in there at the beginning
of the inning even though it was absolutely clear he had nothing
going for him at all.  THe first two batters absolutely drilled
the ball, but right at the center fielder (Burks?).  Then the
hits began.  Should've gotten Schiraldi out of there after the
first baserunner, it was clear he was getting killed.

Should have left Roger in, anyway.  Why take your best pitcher
out of the game?

Andrew
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: texdude@cs1.bradley.edu (Philip Allen)
Subject: Re: joe carter and others
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: rec
Date: 13 Dec 92 02:36:01 GMT

In <1992Dec12.4235.52095@dosgate> "michael berger" <michael.berger@canrem.com> writes:

>Nine Hendersons would not
>score all those runs because the whole clubhouse would be at eachothers'
>throats, chiefly because only one of them could bat leadoff.

And 9 Carter's would never score because no one would ever get on base.
With 8 Joe Carter's (.309 OBP) batting in front of him, I doubt Carter
would get 60 RBI's.  Even though I'm not the biggest R. Henderson fan
in the world, I'd bet on 9 Hendersons and their bad attitudes over
9 Carters any day.

>If you really believe the Jays should not have resigned Carter, name
>their alternative for replacing his production on the team.  Sierra was
>the only run-producing outfielder left and his attitude rivals
>Henderson's.

Please.  I live in Ft. Worth, and have been a Rangers fan as long as
I can remember.  Sierra's attitude/escapades are grossly exaggerated
in the national papers.  He's a very proud guy with a big ego.  He
was promised a lot of things that didn't happen, so he was understandably
pissed off a lot last year.

The only problem I'd see with the Jays picking up Sierra is that he
has a habit of pulling his leg muscles on artificial surfaces.


Phil Allen
texdude@cs1.bradley.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Runaway Salaries
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:00:23 GMT

I just saw in the paper that Barbara Streisand signed with Sony for
SIXTY MILLION DOLLARS!  How is it that an ordinary person can afford
to go to a concert or buy a record or watch a movie or videotape when
these greedy stars insist on so much money?  You just know that Sony's
going to have to raise the price of their television sets!  It's only
a matter of time before these studios go bankrupt, and we won't *have*
movies or records any more.

Sheesh.


Smileys where appropriate, for the ironically impaired.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: wall@cc.swarthmore.edu (Matthew Wall)
Subject: Re: All-Time St. Louis Browns Team
Followup-To: rec.sport.baseball
Organization: Swarthmore College Computing CenterCenter
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 13:31:36 GMT

In article <745@blue.cis.pitt.edu>, genetic+@pitt.edu (Dr. Dave) wrote:
> 
> Actually, this team isn't all that bad.  No left-handed pitching, which
> would be a serious weakness, but otherwise solid:
> 

Dr. Dave, I guess this would be cheating, but you might make ex-Brownies
sold in a desperate attempt to get cash eligible. Then you could get Vern
Stephens at SS, etc.


- matt


----------------------
This space left intentionally blank until spring training.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: Trivia Question
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 22:21:47 GMT

In <15DEC199213241654@mary.fordham.edu>, Leonard J. Nissim writes:

>In article <BzB8Mw.27x@mach1.wlu.ca>,
>lars4752@mach1.wlu.ca (Bradley Larsen u) writes...
>>Name the eight ways by which a batter can reach first base.
>>

>There are at least twelve ways:

>single
>double
>triple
>home run
>walk
>hit by pitch
>error
>fielder's choice
>wild pitch on swinging 3rd strike
>passed ball on swinging 3rd strike
>catcher's interference
>double play (e.g. 1-2-5 DP with bases loaded, 0 out; batter is on first base,
>             another runner on second base with 2 outs.)

>and a thirteenth if you are willing to count it:

>triple play (e.g. 1-2-5-4 triple play with bases loaded, 0 out--batter
                  reaches first base and is left on first base, inning over.)

>Any more?

What if the batter hits the ball and the pitcher tackles the runner on the way
to first?  I think it's safe to say that the runner would be awarded first
base in this case.  As you can see, we can easily generate ridiculous situa-
tions...


Tim Irvin
******************************************************************************
Microsoft Windows.  From the folks who brought you EDLIN.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: '93 Royals Infield?
From: scott@mccall.com (Scott D. Davis)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 11:33:07 CST
Reply-To: scott@mccall.com (Scott D. Davis)
Organization: The McCall Pattern Co., Manhattan, KS, USA
Nntp-Posting-User: scott


In article <1992Dec14.132417.22128@cs.tulane.edu>, eebonar@sn01.sncc.lsu.edu (Dave Bonar) writes:
>also wouldn't be arround to contend).  I'm not convinced that KC could do any
>better for itself by not spending the money they spent on Lind and Gagne
>(they can't make realistic player evaluations, I doubt they can make realistic
>investments).
>
Which brings up these questions: Why can't the Royals' farm system
produce some quality offense like they did w/ George Brett, Willie
Wilson, Frank White and John Mayberry(?)?   
--
Scott D. Davis <scott@mccall.com>       The McCall Pattern Company
(uucp: ...!widener!depot!mccall!scott)	615 McCall Road
(800)255-2762, in Kansas (913)776-4041  Manhattan, KS 66502, USA
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: arrow@netcom.com (Les Arrow)
Subject: Re: Worrell to the Dodgers!!!!
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 11:03:40 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.014034.26071@panix.com> spira@panix.com (Greg "Sarcasm Is A Way Of Life" Spira) writes:
>
>No, they were very much in the same world.
>
>	AVG	OBP	SLG
>Leadoff .265	.332	.343
>Overall	.260	.331	.333
>
>In other words, vurtually no change.
>
>And I have no idea what makes you think he's a potentially great
>leadoff hitter.  It's possible he could be a decent one.  But I 
>wouldn't expect him to ever maintain an OBP over .370, and he is
>a menace to his own team on the basepaths.
>

I think you're making a rash judgement on only one season of full play.

Rickey Henderson had a .338 OBP in his first season.
Brett Butler didn't start htting the .390s until his 7th year in the majors.

Besides, Offerman had great minor league numbers and for some reason
until the second half of last year, he couldn't hit.

Does anyone have the first half/ second half breakup for Offerman?

--Les

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: tedward@cs.cornell.edu (Edward [Ted] Fischer)
Subject: Re: Mets 92
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 20:37:02 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.172820.1374@panix.com> spira@panix.com (Greg "Sarcasm Is A Way Of Life" Spira) writes:
>
>Ted, I think you're exagerrating.  Yes, the only real huge below
>expectations performance was HoJo.  But you're forgetting that every
>single regular performed below what could/should have been expected.
>Every single player on the team - Bonilla, HoJo, Schofield, Murray,
>Magadan, Pecota, Coleman, Randolph, Hundley - contributed less than
>STATS projected them to.

Really?  STATS projected Coleman to hit that well?  Murray hit pretty
well too.  Did he *really* underperform the STATS predictions?  I'm
skeptical here.  Could you go into detail, please?

>Saberhagen, one of the best 5 starters in baseball, contributed nothing.

Didn't I say something about this *last* winter?  When you have
Saberhagen, Gooden, and Fernandez in the rotation, you are guaranteed
to have at *least* one of them on the DL for a major part of the
season.  (And yes, I repeat this prediction for 1993.)

>No one on the
>staff really did better than expected except El Sid.

Who did a *lot* better than expected.  Call it even for the offense
minus HoJo.

>While there were a lot of people here who felt the Mets would not win,
>I would bet that most of the posters, including 75% of the analyst-
>types, thought they would contend.

I think I picked them third or fourth.  Not really "contending".  So
they finished fifth.  I didn't expect HoJo to suck like that...  The
rest was moderately predictable (though I expected a dive from
Murray).

-Valentine
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Date: Saturday, 12 Dec 1992 19:34:59 EST
From: <RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: joe carter and others
Distribution: rec

another thing: about this "rickey henderson is probably the most
self-centered ballplayer ever" or some such...

the three statistics that most people think are the best (regardless
of whether or not they are the best) in determining greatness of a
player are batting average, runs batted in, and home runs.

an extremely self-centered person, in order to look good to the greatest
number of people, would attempt to maximize these statistics, at the cost
of his team, if necessary.

an extremely self-centered person would thus walk as little as possible.
walking does not increase batting average; walking does not increase
home runs; walking rarely increases runs batted in.  all walking does
is help your team win games, and your teammates get runs batted in, which
an extremely self-centered person would not care about.

i leave it to you to determine which of joe carter and rickey henderson is
one of the best walkers ever, and which is a pathetic walker.

(obviously, rickey must have come to the plate 95 times with the bases
loaded last year, and thus walked to get an rbi each time).

bob vesterman.

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: thf2@quads.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Maynard Ex Ante
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 18:59:02 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.151258.1255@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca> maynard@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Roger Maynard) writes:
>>I suppose that you think that one team has a 100% chance of
>>winning the WS, it's just that we don't have enough information,
>>right?
>
>Absolutely correct.  Bingo.  You got it.  

Ah, Rog, you're a predestination kinda guy.  I guess that means you
can't be blamed for your postings... they were just inevitable.  But
at the same time, you should stop insulting Valentine because he can't
help but be rational and use common sense -- it's pre-ordained.

Ted "'Wildcat' Schrodinger was the best man in the batter's box" Frank
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: texdude@cs1.bradley.edu (Philip Allen)
Subject: Atlanta pitching
Organization: Bradley University
Date: 16 Dec 92 16:25:54 GMT


I have to admit - the Braves rotation is one of the best I've seen
in a long time.  But then, I thought the Reds had the best team I'd 
seen in a long time too (last year).  =)

I've seen a lot of people say, "Well, I think their better than <such
and such> staff - because while all of the pitchers in <such and such>
staff had excellent years, they all bombed when they were together."
Well, we haven't seen how the Braves pitching will react to another
pitcher.  And we haven't seen how Maddux will react to no longer being
one of the only bright spots on a team.

Just out of curiosity, who will be pitching in the opening game?  Cases
could be made for both Maddux and Glavine.  Does anyone think that maybe
there could be some hard feelings for the one who doesn't get picked?
If Maddux starts, Glavine could see this as a message that he isn't the
  Braves' number one pitcher anymore.
If Glavine starts, Maddux could see this as a message that, although he
  won the Cy Young, he isn't going to be their number one pitcher.

Either way, one of the two is going to get "demoted". 


But still - this rotation looks awfully scary.


Phil Allen
texdude@cs1.bradley.edu


Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: All-Time A's Team
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 20:26:55 GMT

In article <tkevans.724611545@eplrx7.es.dupont.com> tkevans@eplrx7.es.dupont.com writes:
>dxf12@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas Fowler) writes:

>>>	OF Henderson
>>     Do you bat him or Collins leadoff, though?  It's close.

>>>	OF Jackson
>>     Maybe Canseco and he would platoon, but I'm tempted to think he'd win
>>the regular job.  Jose would start a few, though.

>>>	OF Simmons
>
>I haven't see Big Gus Zernial here.  Hit 50+ homers at least one year, and
>20+ for several more, the latter being a major disappointment to Philly
>fans after the former, even though Gus had some major injuries in the
>last couple of years before the A's moved to KC.

Well, let's not get carried away.  Zernial one hit 42 homers, and twice
more topped 30.  3 other seasons over 20.  In 1955 he had 30 homers and 30 
walks, which gains him entry to the Tony Armas Club.

Ozark Ike might make it onto the team as a pinch-hitter or something.

Roger
From: demers@cs.ucsd.edu (David DeMers)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Pie Traynor (was Re: Greatest Players by team)
Date: 12 Dec 92 21:48:31 GMT
Organization: =CSE Dept., U.C. San Diego

Re: Tate's Mystery 3B

Hmm.  Nettles?


-- 
Dave DeMers			 ddemers@UCSD   demers@cs.ucsd.edu
Computer Science & Engineering	C-014		demers%cs@ucsd.bitnet
UC San Diego					...!ucsd!cs!demers
La Jolla, CA 92093-0114	(619) 534-0688, or -8187, FAX: (619) 534-7029
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball