HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gajarsky@pilot.njin.net (Bob Gajarsky - Hobokenite)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Offense, Defense, and the Transmutation of Egalitarian Society
Date: 24 Dec 92 22:42:51 GMT
Organization: Somewhere in Hoboken

well, in yor home run contest...

let's say the fences are 50 feet away from home plate.  so devon and
 cecil have roughly the same chance to hit it out.  i'd say
 defense would be VASTLY more important than offense, since there'd
 be almost a 100% chance of hitting it out.


but this is getting way off the topic.  

- bob gaj
Xref: sparky rec.sport.baseball:36845 soc.women:21905 soc.men:21797 rec.sport.football.pro:30077
From: system@spcb.bbn.com (Regis McEwen)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball,soc.women,soc.men,rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Re: Women Sports Reporters
Date: 24 Dec 1992 10:50:20 GMT
Reply-To: system@spcb.bbn.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: spcb.bbn.com

In article <1992Dec20.025311.4713@adobe.com>, snichols@adobe.com (Sherri Nichols) writes:
>In article <1992Dec18.165337.27469@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
>>As I recall, at least one team owner tried to get all the reporters (no
>>gender distinctions) out of the locker room and into an interview area.  He
>>was more or less 'jumped on' by the commission (not sure whether this was
>>baseball or football) who argued that it was required that interviews take
>>place in the locker room, and that an interview area was not an acceptable
>>substitute.
>
>The only recent thing I can think of that comes close to fitting your above
>scenario was the situation with Sam Wyche, the coach (not owner) of the
>Bengals (a football team).  Wyche tried to unilaterally ban women reporters
>from the locker room, not move all reporters to an interview room, and the
>league came down on him.  

	[I've added rec.sport.football.pro]

	Sam Wyche, ((now former) NFL coach of the Cincinatti Bengals) tried to
	ban ALL reporters from the locker room, not just women, and allow
	them (ALL reporters) access to the players in a separate interviewing
	room after the game.

	If my memory serves, he did this because after a difficult loss, he
	lost his temper and said something in the "heat of battle" when
	questioned about a particular play to a reporter and threw everybody
	out.

	To avoid this and perhaps in protest to the Lisa Olson incident --
	a women reporter for the Boston Herald that was  abused in
	the New England Patriot lockerroom -- and "to give privacy to his
	players in the locker room", he set up an interviewing room.

	Arguably, his move could have been contrued as effectively disallowing
	women in the locker room especially in light of the Lisa Olson
	incident that occurred a week or so before in New England and was, then
	currently under investigation, but the complete story has to include
	that the men were also excluded.

	Paul Tagiliabue, the NFL commissioner, fined Wyche and said that ALL
	reporters have equal access to the players soon (15 minutes?) after any
	game to "accurately transcribe the events and preceptions of football
	games for the fans".

	Now, while I agree that women reporters should have equal access in
	pursuit of a scoop (and not to be out scooped) it's not unreasonable
	for this to occur outside the locker room, away from the showers, etc.
	for both the women and men reporters.

	Although, like most fans, I too am interested in "the thrill of victory
	and the agony of defeat" as it unfolds and it's aftermath which is
	easier to get soon after the battle while emotions still run high and
	athletes are more candid than after a "while" when the talk becomes
	more cliche`d.


								-Regis
From: ez027993@dale.ucdavis.edu (Gary The Owners Are Lying Bastards Huckabay)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Old-fashioned hitters (was Best Playes (sic) of All Times)
Date: 23 Dec 92 18:01:05 GMT
Organization: Oakland A's Bad Pitcher Club (Heaverlo Division)

In article <8197@news.duke.edu> fls@acpub.duke.edu (Forrest Smith) writes:
>	When comparing the best hitters of today with the best hitters
>of yesteryear, there seems to be some idea that, although cumulative
>batting averages of an earlier era were higher than those of today, the
>actual talent level of today is higher.  Like, maybe pitchers are
>better, so it's generally harder to hit.

Well, it also has something to do with improvement of absolute performance
in other sports.  In 1894, the world record for running a mile was about
four weeks.  Today it's down to well under four minutes.  (Hyperbole, but
you get the main idea.)

>	Did anybody ever consider that maybe the hitters from the '30s,
>or the 'Teens, were just better hitters than today's players?

Yes, I once did.  But there are several holes in such an argument.  
Personally, I think they're elf-evident, but I'm sure someone will point
them out to you.  I'd LOVE to be transported back in time to about 1900,
where my fastball would be considered excellent. 

>	I suggest that today's baseball players cannot hit like their
>predecessors because of a change in the way kids grow up.  Kids don't
>play baseball day in and day out like they used to.

They try.  I did.  Of course, it's tougher now, because there's less
open space, and many places rope off their infields so that people
can't use them.  (For insurance purposes.)  Also, there's the problem
of competing with adult softball for space.  Go out to your local park
in California during the spring or summer, and every diamond will be
taken up by a practicing adult softball team.

But your point is well taken.

>  The best baseball
>players growing up now play organized baseball from the time they are
>five years old.

The best young baseball players in this area play six days a week,
year round, even in the rain, two hours a day.  I assume this is the
case everywhere the climate permits.

>But if you're a kid in America
>today, you're not going to be able to find enough people to go out and
>play baseball every day, even if you want to, and even if you have
>someplace to play.

Oh, be serious.  You don't need 18 guys, a diamond, and umpires to
play ball!  Draw a rectangle behind the batter for the strike zone,
the corner of the Chevy's first base, pitcher's hand good as any base,
ghost runners, right field closed off, three balls and two strikes
is all you get.  Hit Batsmen is automatic home run, for those kids 
playing without helmets.

Some would argue that this is the way baseball SHOULD be played.



-- 
*    Gary Huckabay     * "Hi, Joel, it's Kathy."  "Hi, Kath."  "I think you 
*  "Official keeper    *  better come over.  Gary's not well.  He's chewing 
*  of the r.s.b. ammo  *  on the carpet, his eyes are red, and he's sobbing 
*   and weapons hoard."*  uncontrollably." "The A's signed Storm.  He'll live." 
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball,soc.women,soc.men
From: scott@asd.com (Scott Barman)
Subject: Re: Women Sports Reporters
Organization: American Software Development Corp., West Babylon, NY
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 21:33:00 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.162223.11412@adobe.com> snichols@adobe.com (Sherri Nichols) writes:
>In article <1992Dec23.024452.24795@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
>>I assume that men reporters are also entitled to interview women
>>athletes while they are bathing, although I've never heard of one man
>>even attempting to do so.
>
>In every sport where women participate, men and women reporters have equal
>access to the players.

In most cases, there is a separate interview area outside the
lockerooms.  In the case of tennis, nobody is allowed in either the mens
or womens lockerooms except for players and coaches.  They set up an an
interview area away from the dressing area.

Recently, I spoke with someone who covers college sports for a southern
newspaper and part of his "beat" is womens basketball.  He said that the
NCAA mandates that all reporters are to be given equal access to the
players and does not exclude reporters from the lockerrooms unless all
reporters are banned.  However, the Atlantic Coast, Metro and Southern
Conferences close all womens lockerrooms to reporters and require the
schools to have an interview area where every reporter is granted equal
access.  The reporter I spoke with likes the arrangement.  The women
usually shower before going to the interview area and are usually more
relaxed and more talkative.  He is also married and does not want his
wife (who can get jealous) thinking he's looking at "another woman," so
this arrangement is fine with him.
[these are his opinions, not mine!  I'm just reporting them.]
-- 
scott barman			| <This space intentionally left blank>
scott@asd.com			|
 (I can barely speak for myself, you expect me to speak for my employer??)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: jpalmer@uwovax.uwo.ca (The Econoclast)
Subject: Re: Darian Lyndsay - stats needed.
Organization: University of Western Ont, London
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 03:24:09 GMT

In article <griffin.725598248@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU>, griffin@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (Sean McGerty) writes:
> My coach here in Australia where I play triple A ball is a guy 
> called Darian Lyndsay and he pitches in the Mets farm teams.
>  
> As this is quite a feat for an Australian I was wondering if 
> somebody may have in one of those massive stat tomes you're 
> allways quoting from the stats for him?
>  
> The entire Grantham Eagles AAA Baseball club would like to know.

According to the Richard Scarry Big Book of Baseball Stats, he pitched
last year with the Grand Rapids Metroliners. His record was 8W 4L, in
19 GS with an ERA of 3.78 in 121 innings pitched. He is listed as a
marginal prospect due to his age.

-- 
 Regards,
  John Palmer    London, Ontario       Voice: (519) 661-3533     FAX: 661-3666
  reply to jpalmer@uwovax.uwo.ca       The Economics Institute for Journalists
  ============================================================================
          C'est la vie. C'est la guerre. C'est la pomme de terre.
From: chee1l5@Jane.UH.EDU (sam lane)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: TICKET PRICES FOR 1993
Date: 31 Dec 1992 20:13:23 GMT
Organization: University of Houston
Distribution: world
Reply-To: chee1l5@Jane.UH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: jane.uh.edu

David McCarroll writes:

>TICKET PRICES FOR 1993 (from USA Today Baseball Weekly 12/30,1992)
>
>Chicago White Sox
>   $18 Club level
>   $15 Lower box
>   $12 Upper box
>   $11 Lower reserved
>   $ 8 Upper reserved
>   $ 8 Reserved bleachers

Ouch! Eight bucks is the cheapest seat. This really sucks.


>Chicago Cubs  (note: price increases from 1992)
>   $17 Group section
>   $16 Group section (April, May, September weekdays)

$17 for the *Cubs*! Yeah, I can see that.
Why are the tickets less in April and May? Seems they'd be more since the
Cubs haven't been mathematically eliminated yet.


>Houston Astros
>   $12 Field
>   $10 Mezzanine
>   $ 8 Loge
>   $ 7 Upper terrace
>   $ 6 Upper box
>   $ 5 Upper reserved
>   $ 4 General admission (adults) ; $1 for 12-and-under

Yeah, but you can buy the $5 upper reserved and just sit in the sweet Mezzanine
seats behind homeplate.

 
>Los Angeles Dodgers
>   $11 Box and Loge
>   $ 8 Reserved
>   $ 6 General admission

Surprisingly cheap considering its southern California. I guess you get
what you pay for.


>San Francisco Giants  (note: price increases from 1992)

>   $ 2.75 Bleachers

Gotta love $2.75. Highly recommended for *day* games (ie temp>40 F).



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                 ~ Reardon can still bring it. Chyeah right (tm).             
Sam Lane         ~ Overheard this summer- Warren Spahn:"Do you know who I am?" 
Univ.of Houston  ~ 8-year old:"No, but my Dad says get your autograph because
Dept.of Chem.Eng.~             you want be around much longer."
                 ~ "I'm pretty sure he's an idiot, but I can't *prove* it."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: gajarsky@pilot.njin.net (Bob Gajarsky - Hobokenite)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Orestes Destrade info?
Date: 26 Dec 92 16:51:45 GMT
Organization: Somewhere in Hoboken


for someone who has a baseball encyclopedia, or minor league
 stuff for the late 80's...

can you post orestes destrade stats in the majors/minors?  in 1985,
 he hit 23 homers at albany, which is pretty impressive.  only
 problem is, he's born in 1962 - so this year would be probably
 his best american year....

thanks. -bob gaj
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: djcoll04@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: Offense, Defense, and the Transmutation of Egalitarian Society
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 10:41:37 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

Hey, thanks for everyone for the introduction to this network.  It's been fun.

Now, a few messages ago, someone gaves his picks for '93.  Since I'm bored, I'm
going to respond by giving my picks. 

NL East - NY Mets.  In the past two weeks, the length of time that I have been
on this network, no one has given the Mets much credit.  I think that the
rehab on the pitching front and the minor acquisitions on the offensive front
will vault them to first place in the new worst division in baseball.  Face it,
they were the most talented fifth place team in baseball last year, and this 
year that talent will come to fruition.  I say this with pain, as I am a
lifelong Expos fan.  Second place again.

NL West - Cincinnati.  Another painful pick, as I despise the Reds and their
bigoted fans (I've been there many times), but they have emourous talent and a
great acquisition in Mitchell.  Why not the Braves?  Well, this is a gut pick.
The Braves have been too lucky over the last two years by avoiding injuries and 
serious slumps to their pitching staff.  This will be the year, according to 
myself and Jeane Dixon, when that luck runs out.  Not the safest pick.  Just a
hunch.  Giants or Astros second.  Braves third.

AL East - Toronto.  Hands down, the class of the League.

AL West - ChiSox.  Actually, I don't know much about the AL West.  This is one
of those process of elemination picks.  The former class of the division 
(Twins, A's) are decining and the up-and-comers (Royals, Mariners) aren't quite 
there yet.  The Angels?  Dead last.   The Rangers?  In the top three, probably
second.  A fpitching acquisitions could send them to the '94 Series.

World Series -------------------  Toronto 4, Cincinnati 1.
                                And, it will be boring.



Remember, of the four major professional sports, baseball is the one with the
greatest number of statistics.  Still, it is the most unpredictable pro sport
of the lot. 
                                  Peace in Louisville,
                                                        P. T.

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: punjabi@leland.Stanford.EDU (sanjeev punjabi)
Subject: Which baseball publication is the best one to subscribe to?
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 16:57:13 GMT


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.
	Sanjeev









Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: arrow@netcom.com (Les Arrow)
Subject: Re: Expos Clinch! Wallach to Dodgers
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 22:57:08 GMT

In article <1992Dec25.210432.2330@panix.com> spira@panix.com (Greg "Sarcasm Is A Way Of Life" Spira) writes:
>In <Dec.25.11.18.10.1992.29937@pilot.njin.net> gajarsky@pilot.njin.net (Bob Gajarsky - Hobokenite) writes:
>
>>just a point...
>
>>i think wallach is as bad an offensive player as everyone else
>> here on the net, but...looking in my STATS books from
>> '92 and '91 seasons, wallach is 2nd best in the majors last
>> year (in limited time) and 4th in the n.l. in '91 (which
>> correspodns roughly to average) in range.  
>
>>so why does everyone refer to him as a poor fielder?  
>> - bob gaj
>
>Don't know.  I think his fielding has fallen a long way, but from
>great to about average, not to bad.  It's his offense that has
>fallen to levels that are not worthy of playing time.
>
>I used to think that Fred Claire was a half decent gm.  No more
>Acquiring Wallach is like bring a trojan horse into your home.
>
>Greg 

Fred Claire is an awful GM, but is this move really that bad? Wallach
is still good defesively. The Dodgers are gambling that their good pitching
will be helped immensley by the gloves of Reed and Wallach. If Strawberry
really can come back, then they may be able to score enough runs to stay
competitive.

Last year the Dodgers gave up 91 unearned runs. The team improves by just
adding defense.

--Les
From: tinman@ozgroup.EBay.Sun.COM (Mike Kowtko)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Cadaco All-Star games for sale
Date: 3 Jan 1993 17:27:25 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: tinman@ozgroup.EBay.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: ozgroup.ebay.sun.com


I have ended up with 24 packaged Cadaco All-Star Baseball
games, that I would like to part with.
 
These are the spinner games with circular player disks.
 
I know there is a big Cadaco contingency out there somewhere,
but don't know where.
 
I would like to sell or trade these games for something that
takes less space. These games are boxed in groups of 6. I have
4 such unopened boxes.
 
E-mail me or call (415) 969-2546
 
Thanks,
 
Mike


Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: vince@paradyne.com (Vince Ciletti)
Subject: Re: More on Bond's Antics.
Organization: AT&T Paradyne, Largo, Florida
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 14:29:34 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.012501.10250@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> nlu@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu) writes:
>In article <ljcf33INNopg@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> gfb@debs.Eng.Sun.COM (Gary Brown - TechnicaL WriteR - SunConnect) 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
>>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!!
>
>I don't think you got Jim's article at all.  The point is, there is a big
>difference between $7.2 million paid to *you* and $7.2 million paid to *Bonds*.
>
>How can you turn down, for example, if someone pays you $500,000 to make a
>record?  But that will be a huge insult for Madonna.
>
>===============================================================================
>GO CALIFORNIA ANGELS!
>===============================================================================
>Nelson Lu (claudius@leland.stanford.edu)

I may be wrong, but wasn't the issue over whether he got the 6th year or
not?  I believe the SF deal was for $43M for SIX years, as opposed to
$36M for 5 - which works out to about the same $7.2M annually.

Now, I'm not a Bonds fan (not by a long shot) but I can't fault him for
looking for that extra year.  However, it does seem rediculous that he
was "insulted" by the measly 5 year - $36M offer.

Vince


Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Expos Clinch! Wallach to Dodgers
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 19:37:39 GMT

In article <1992Dec25.165929.16338@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca> bspencer@cs.mcgill.ca (Brian SPENCER) writes:
>
>Wallach is still an excellent fielder. But he had the worst BA for
>regular players (3.1 AB per game). His leadership will be missed. I
>heard an interview with him on a Montreal radio station yesterday. He
>sounded disappointed. It would have been his last to chance to play in
>the WS.

Wallach is a 10-and-5 player, which means he had to agree to the
trade, I think...which shows you what a classy person he is...since
the Expos chances in the near future are probably better than the
Dodgers chances.   Wallach allowed the Expos to do the right thing
for the Expos, even though it may not have been the absolute best
thing for Tim Wallach.

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.

Gerald
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: maynard@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Roger Maynard)
Subject: Re: Expos Clinch! Wallach to Dodgers
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Laurentian University, Sudbury, ON
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 19:36:20 GMT

In <1993Jan3.091527.3394@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:

>It's not that intangibles can't exist.  It's just that when you can
>explain 97% of their season by the stats alone, without any recourse to
>intangibles, it doesn't seem to make sense to ascribe more than 3% of
>the blame for their performance to these intangibles.

Nonsense.  If you are assessing performance after the fact then the 97%
is a combination of talent + intangibles.  Can you separate the two?
No.  As for predicting performance, well, you can't seriously mean that
you can predict performance at a 97% accuracy rate.

>And anyway, unlike Slugging or On-Base ability, there is absolutely no
>way to measure these intangibles (by definition), but more importantly,
>no way to even *see* them ahead of time.

Exactly.  That is why your predictions are laughable.  If you really think
that your methods are more accurate than those of the common herd then
why don't you hop on down to Vegas and get rich betting on baseball?  If
you are concerned about sample size - bet on every game.  Odds are calculated
according to how bookies predict people will bet - not on the final score.
Surely your scientific methods would give you the advantage over those
who bet by gut feelings?  I submit that your predictions might allow you
to break even - assuming that "luck" is on your side!
 
>When a team plays badly, it is *said* to have poor intangibles.  So you can't
>use their bad play as *proof* that their intangibles affected them.

>And you can't predict them.  Will the Mets have a good OBP next year?
>No, not with their current batch of players.  I can say that with 95%
>confidence.  Will they have good intangibles next year?  I have no idea,

Does OBP have anything to do with winning?  If it does you should figure
on making some money out of this info.  But if your information on OBP
does not correlate with how many games the team will win then it is useless
information isn't it?

rm

-- 
Roger Maynard
maynard@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball