HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jdarnold@HQ.Ileaf.COM (Jonathan Arnold)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Burks and related mediocies
Date: 8 Jan 93 14:15:45 GMT
Organization: Interleaf, Inc.

In article <1993Jan6.080011.18586@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>In <1993Jan6.014822.12142@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>In article <875.02LZ300r01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> dba30@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (David Allison) writes:
>>>with it.  It makes me wonder about his back when he out right refused an
>>>incentive based contract.  I wouldn't want to guarantee him over 3 mil.
>>>either.
>>Burks just signed an incentive based contract with the White Sox -- $500K
>>with $1.5 million+ in incentives.
>Another rationalization of a Gorman idiocy shot, then.

I heard of another great Sunny Lou rationalization yesterday on the
radio.  It seems he was, of course, asked about the Ellis Burks/Eric
Wedge fiasco (Ellis was protected, leaving Wedge unprotected, then
letting Ellis walk for nothing anyway), Lou claimed the reason they
protected Ellis was because they thought they had a good chance of
trading him.  When the deal fell through, they didn't bother resigning
him.  Sounds like a crock of bull to me - like Dan Shaughnessy said on
the show, why would we think they could trade Ellis when they couldn't
even trade Jody Reed, who merely got drafted then immediately traded
by an upstart expansion team.

+=================================+================================+
| Jonathan Arnold                 |  Interleaf, Inc.               |
| jdarnold@ileaf.com              |  Prospect Place                |
| Home: (617)335-5457             |  9 Hillside Avenue             |
| Bus: (617)290-4990 x5489        |  Waltham, MA 02154             |
+=================================+================================+
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: raxter@bnr.ca (Steve Raxter )
Subject: Re: Howe phone number needed
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, BNR-RTP 
Distribution: rec
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 19:31:13 GMT

In article <GEORGE.93Jan7131642@sabre.cit.cornell.edu>, george@sabre.cit.cornell.edu (George Boyce) writes:
|> Does anyone have a phone number (or city) for Howe SportsData, the
|> minor league stats folks? Thanks.
|> 
|> George

 Thats in Boston.(617)951-0070




SR.

 My opinions are my own. Ya gets whats ya pay fer.
 "A paranoic is someone who has an idea about what is really
 going on" P.Townsend.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: spira@panix.com (Greg "Sarcasm Is A Way Of Life" Spira)
Subject: Re: Alomar and Range Factor (was Re: Lists: The Best Players In Baseball)
Organization: Noo! 
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 23:12:46 GMT

In <1993Jan11.165249.24627@adobe.com> snichols@adobe.com (Sherri Nichols) writes:

>In article <C0Js8v.IuI@panix.com> spira@panix.com (Greg "Sarcasm Is A Way
>Of Life" Spira) writes:

><explanation deleted>
>>In ZR, Mr. 2B looks better.  In DA, Alomar looks a lot better.  
>>ZR credits players for the successes but not the failures outside the zone.
>>And because the zone is too small, I believe that ends up favoring the
>>reliable over the guy with great range in a silly way.

>I agree with Greg's explanation, with the caveat that Stats has never been
>very explicit about their zones and we guessing based on what they have
>said about their zones and based on a comparison of opportunities for
>players in ZR and DA that ZR zones are considerably smaller than DA areas.

David Grabiner has pointed out in e-mail that my original analysis was a
little off in the following way, so I thought I'd report it.

I suggested that a player making 250 out of 300 plays in zone, and 25 out
of 100 out of zone but in da's area, would end up rated as making 250
out of 325 plays in zone and 275 out of 400 in the da area.  But, in fact,
zone ratings just add the out-of zone play to the numerator and not to the
denominator, so the zone rating would end up being 275 out of 300 plays.

This ends up making a bit more sense, but it still leaves the zr ratings
based on zones that are too small, I think.  But the problem ends up
as a problem more of the denominator than the numerator.

There's also the double plays added into zone ratings, which, as Sherri
points out, make no sense whatsoever; they just confuse the issue


Greg
From: grabiner@math.harvard.edu (David Grabiner)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Stats' correlation with winning (batters)
Date: 12 Jan 93 21:16:51 GMT
Article-I.D.: kovalevs.GRABINER.93Jan12161629
Organization: /etc/organization
In-reply-to: jle@world.std.com's message of Tue, 12 Jan 1993 18:18:01 GMT

In article <C0r6u1.JGo@world.std.com>, Joe M Leonard writes:

> As a follow-on of sorts to the Fielder et al discussions, I thought I'd
> run the 1992 AL team stats to see what correlated with Wins (really the
> only Important stat?)...

> Runs		0.673
> SB-rat	0.555
> TBB		0.503
> SB		0.429
> Hits		0.344
> EB-hits	0.114
> HR		0.062

There is a more thorough study, done by George T. Wiley and summarized
in The Hidden Game of Baseball, which correlates the rank of a team in
its league in 17 different stats with its position in the standings, for
both leagues from 1920 to 1959.  (The correlations between raw numbers
for these stats and win totals might be stronger; in this study, winning
a pennant with 111 victories and with 95 victories are treated the
same.)

Runs Allowed		.749
ERA			.743
Runs Scored		.737
Slugging Average	.642
Batting Average		.615
Shutouts		.547
Pitchers' Strikeouts	.517
Fielding Percentage	.498
Errors			.472
Saves			.453
Complete Games		.420
Homers			.419
Walks Allowed		.368
Doubles			.343
Triples			.298
Stolen Bases		.210
Double Plays		.073

Some of these correlations are not as meaningful as they seem.  Saves
and complete games tend to be a result of having a good team.  Fielding
percentage correlates well with winning not because it is important, but
because good fielders tend to make fewer errors as well as more good
plays.  Grounding into double plays does hurt your team, but the teams
that ground into a lot of them tend to have a lot of baserunners.

The biggest surprise to me was that pitchers' strikeouts were much more
important that pitchers' walks.

The first three lines show that baseball is 50% pitching and fielding,
since runs allowed and runs scored have the same correlation with
winning.

--
David Grabiner, grabiner@zariski.harvard.edu
"We are sorry, but the number you have dialed is imaginary."
"Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and try again."
Disclaimer: I speak for no one and no one speaks for me.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: steph@pegasus.cs.uiuc.edu (Dale Stephenson)
Subject: Re: The Best First-base Player in !993
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 06:14:30 GMT

In <C0MIys.1zG@news.iastate.edu> vbdiep@iastate.edu (Vinh Diep) writes:

>In article <C0M6pC.IIp@news.iastate.edu> vbdiep@iastate.edu writes:
>>	While many of you are arguing about Will Clark and Frank Thomas, and 
>>one is better than the other, one player that some of you seem to ignore will
>>surprise baseball fans in 1993. That All-Star first-baseman is DON MATTINGLY.
>> 	Any questions?

>	With one question above, I am flooded with questions like "What are
>you smoking?" and "What's in your pipe?" I am surprised. What is wrong with
>you people who come up with such questions. Think clean. Don't let that 
>"stuff" hang around your head (I mean to those people ask me those questions).
>	Please avoid such questions (or related questions).
>	THANK YOU from the bottom of my heart...  CHAO....

OK, how will Mattingly suprise baseball fans?  Will they be suprised that Don
Mattingly has a season worth comparing to Clark, let alone Thomas, or will
they be suprised to suddenly realize that Mattingly isn't helping the Yankees
win ballgames anymore?

Neither seems very likely to me, but the latter seems more likely.




-- 
Dale J. Stephenson |*| (steph@cs.uiuc.edu) |*| Baseball fanatic

  "It is considered good to look wise, especially when not 
   overburdened with information" -- J. Golden Kimball
From: fierkelab@bchm.biochem.duke.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Cecil signs :-( :-( :-(
Date: 12 Jan 93 19:38:10 GMT
Organization: Biochemistry

In article <1993Jan12.165406.29977@athena.mit.edu> frisch1@athena.mit.edu
(Jonathan Katz) writes:

>When I made the comment about having him (*Cecil Fielder*)on the Mets, I must
have been thinking
>about his excitement value and not his actual baseball value (Lord knows the 
>Mets could use some excitement this year.  Maybe Ryan Thompson :) ).

What, you mean watching HoJo field isn't exciting enough for you?
How about Vince Coleman dodging tarps?

Sorry to say this, but if the Mets are going to depend on Ryan Thompson for
excitement value next season, then, IMO, it's going to be a LONG season.


Eric Roush			Deck us all with Boston Charlie
fierkelab@			Walla Walla Wash and Kalamazoo!
bchm.biochem.duke.edu	Nora's freezin' on the Trolley,
				Swaller Dollar Cauliflower Alla-ga-Roo!

				Walt Kelley
From: brock@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (Bradley W. Brock)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: The Great HOF quiz - 1993 (SPOILER)
Date: 9 Jan 1993 17:39:22 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department at Rose-Hulman
Reply-To: brock@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (Bradley W. Brock)
NNTP-Posting-Host: g210b-1.nextwork.rose-hulman.edu

In article <1993Jan08.180650.17204@watson.ibm.com>  
mjones@fenway.aix.kingston.ibm.com (Mike Jones) writes:
> OK, here's the scoop. I have taken everyone who was eligible for election to
> the hall this year plus one ringer. For hitters, I scaled their career
> statistics to 650 AB; for pitchers, to 200IP for starters and 80 IP for
> relievers. If folks would like to do some guessing (no fair looking them
> up!), I'll tally them and post results in a week or so. For each line, the
> questions are:
> 1. Who is this guy?
> 2. Does he belong in the hall?
> 
> Hint: the ringer is a hitter, is retired, is not in the hall and is no
> longer eligible for election by the writers.
> 
> HITTERS
>   Years  AB  R   H  2B 3B HR  BB  K   AVG  OBP  SLG SB CS
> Q   16  650  88 153 23  2 43  59 177 .236 .300 .478  9  5

Obviously the ringer is Dave Kingman.  And no he does not belong in the Hall.

--
Bradley W. Brock, Department of Mathematics
Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology  | "Resist not evil.... Love your
brock@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu       |  enemies."--Jesus of Nazareth
From: kbanaian@bernard.pitzer.claremont.edu (King Banaian)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Klesko/Arizona League
Date: 6 Jan 93 22:50:06 GMT
Organization: Pitzer College

In article <1993Jan5.214942.21541@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> drw3l@delmarva.evsc.Virginia.EDU (David Robert Walker) writes:
>From: drw3l@delmarva.evsc.Virginia.EDU (David Robert Walker)
> From the 1991 stats, the competetive level is about the same as the
>Northwest League or the New York-Penn league.

No, this is largely a league for players who have a serious shot at the 
majors in the next year.  From what I see, the data look more like PCL 
numbers (AAA, but with hitter parks).



>The problem for MLEs isn't the age of the league, but the play level.
>James' MLEs are only used for AAA and AA; the Arizona league is low A
>level. 
>
>If you have the full stat line for him and the league I'll run it
>through my MLE code. The lines you give sound consistent with his
>career minor league totals.
>
Yes, that would work, and you shouldn't have to make any additional 
adjustments to the figures -- run 'em like they're AAA.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Dodgers sign Parrish and Ritchie
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 08:16:13 GMT

In article <kbanaian.151.0@bernard.pitzer.claremont.edu> kbanaian@bernard.pitzer.claremont.edu (King Banaian) writes:
>In article <1668@blue.cis.pitt.edu> psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:
>>In article <1666@blue.cis.pitt.edu> genetic+@pitt.edu (Dr. Dave) writes:
>>>Thus spake pcaster@mizar.usc.edu (Dodger):

>>>It's certainly not a long-term solution, but I can't imagine that Parrish
>>>will be any worse this year than Scioscia would be.

>>Thing I don't understand is, I thought this is supposed to be the year 
>>that Mike Piazza, the Dodger's power hitting catcher of the future, makes
>>a name for himself.  Is Parrish simply insurance against a Piazza fizzle,
>>or are they going to bring him along more slowly than originally planned?

>Don't you think the Dodgers are trying to win it all this year?  Given that 

No.  If they were, they wouldn't be using Tim Wallach.
Or, for that matter, Jody Reed, when they had Mike Sharperson.

>Eric Young yields to Jody Reed and Dave Hansen yields to Tim Wallach, doesn'
>t this make you think there is a pattern here?  Besides which, I see him as 
>replacing Carlos Hernandez, not Piazza.  It is probably the most justifiable 
>of the three moves.

>The Dodgers need to go to the dictionary and look up the word "rebuild" ...

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | "We don't need anymore [sic] wretched refuse.  It's 
niepornt@phoenix.    |  time to send the Statue of Liberty somewhere else"
   princeton.edu     |      -- Jack "Not a bigot" Schmidling, 1/7/93
Baltimore Orioles 93 |
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: nlu@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu)
Subject: Re: Lists: The Best Players In Baseeball
Keywords: stars best baseball
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 06:33:46 GMT

In article <C0Gww7.98F@cs.dal.ca> niguma@ug.cs.dal.ca (Gordon Niguma) writes:
>  Well I'm kind of bored now and not a whole lot has gone on in the winter
>lately so I'll post something no one will agree with completely: Here are
>several lists that anyone can make comments on. The players are evaluated on
>how good I think the player is (as in how he'd play in 1993):
>
>Best Players Overall:
>P: Roger Clemens (anyone care to argue?)
>RP: Dennis Eckersley

This is very arguable.  Eckersley had a great season, but wasn't really as good
as the media hyped him to be.  Of course, you can't argue with his consistency.

>1B: Frank Thomas
>2B: Ryne Sandberg
>3B: Edgar Martinez (yes, over Pendleton)

But over Gary Sheffield?  Sheffield is also just 24.  Martinez had the better
season in '92, but it's a tossup right now for '93, even assuming that Martinez
has recovered from surgery.

>SS: Barry Larkin
>C:  Mickey Tettleton (until Daulton can do it back to back)

Well, one of these days, Mickey should wake up and remember that he's 32
already... :-)

>OF: Barry Bonds (of course)
>OF: Ken Griffey Jr.
>OF: Rickey Henderson (assuming he's playing)

Van Slyke, Tartabull, and Mack had better season than Griffey, but of course
Griffey's year is actually considered an off-year, and he's only 22.
>
>Best Players For Expansion Club To Have (under 25 years old or 25):
>SP: John Smoltz  

This is quite debatable.  Smoltz's own team Steve Avery, for example, might
be a better candidate.

>RP: Gregg Olson or Mark Wohlers

Scott Radinsky, perhaps?

>1B: Frank Thomas   
>2B: Roberto Alomar
>3B: Dean Palmer or maybe Jeffries (still only 25)

What about Sheffield?

>SS: Wil Cordero (Fryman's a good choice also) 

I'd think that Fryman's a much better one than Cordero...

> C: Pudge Rodriguez
>OF: Ken Griffey Jr.
>OF: Juan Gonzalez
>OF: Phil Plantier

Plantier might be a bit early to argue for, although he's certainly capable
of great things...

>C: Eric Wedge (please play him! Make Gorman look like an idiot...)

Unfortunately, the Rockies say, as of this moment, that Joe Girardi would
start...  They are probably bigger iditots than Gorman.

===============================================================================
GO CALIFORNIA ANGELS!
===============================================================================
Nelson Lu (claudius@leland.stanford.edu)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: frisch1@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan Katz)
Subject: tagging-up rule question
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 06:57:34 GMT

I must have missed something because when I read through the official baseball
rulebook I could not find mention of tagging-up.
Can anyone point me to the right place?
(frisch1@athena.mit.edu)
-Jonathan Katz
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Cecil signs :-( :-( :-(
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 08:03:00 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.072048.3770@athena.mit.edu> frisch1@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan Katz) writes:
>You think Fielder is barely above average!!!

Yep.  Let's see, last year, McGwire, Olerud, Palmeiro, and Thomas were
better than Fielder, and Hrbek and Sorrento were about even with Fielder
offensively.  That puts him at about fifth through seventh best first
baseman in the AL out of fourteen first basemen -- or slightly above
average.  (Note that Mattingly isn't in this list of the best seven
first-basemen in the AL.)  You include defense in there, he'd slip 
further back -- Fielder is going to be a DH awfully soon, and played
43 games there in 1992.  As a DH, he hit worse than Belle, Chili Davis,
Downing, Molitor, and Winfield -- which would rank him as the sixth
best DH out there, once again barely above average in a fourteen-team
league.

Let's add National League first basemen to the mix.  Bagwell, Will
Clark, Grace, Kruk, and McGriff all hit better -- if the Tigers
had switched over to the NL last year, Fielder would have been the 
sixth best out of thirteen NL first-basemen, once again slightly above
average.

Fielder isn't even one of the top ten first basemen in the majors.  And
he's going to get worse, not better -- he's a slow slugger, the type of 
player that doesn't age well.

>I am a Mets fan, and I would love to see him on the Mets.  

Of course you would!  Eddie Murray is only average, while Fielder is
slightly above average.  Plus Fielder is younger.  Of course, that's
why the Mets are a 73-89 team, because they think average first 
basemen are stars.

>He is clearly an impact player.  

Yeah, he makes a bigger impact on the seismograph for sure.

>Better than Bonds, no.  But a star?, yes, definitely!

Madonna's an even bigger star than Cecil Fielder, but I wouldn't call
her a great first baseman either.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
never shout movie in a crowded firestation
From: brian@meaddata.com (Brian Curran)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: First Game Memories (Was: Re: Hey Giants fans!)
Date: 10 Jan 1993 23:19:05 GMT
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: taurus.meaddata.com

|> In article <mzya3rs@Unify.Com>, .Unify.Com.wm@unify.uucp 
|> (William Morehouse writes...
|> > 
|> >With my first baseball game being so exciting, I was hooked for
|> >life.  Anybody else have a good story about their first ballgame?

My first game was at Fenway Park in 1975, Red Sox v. Royals(?).  Luis
Tiant pitched for the Sox.  My brother and I took the bus up from the
Cape to meet Dad at his Boston office.  After he finished work, my Dad
drove us over to Fenway.  We had reserved grandstand seats up under
the roof on the third base side.  All I remember about the game is
that Tiant's first pitch was a strike, causing me to yell my head off.
When I did the same thing after the second pitch, my older brother
warned me that I'd be coughing up blood if I yelled that hard after
every pitch.  I settled down and the Sox won.
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Curran                 Mead Data Central              brian@meaddata.com 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
"They say that rugby is a beastly game played by gentlemen, soccer is a
  gentlemen's game played by beasts, and that football is a beastly game
  played by beasts."        - Henry Blaha, Baltimore Rugby Club captain
From: gajarsky@pilot.njin.net (Bob Gajarsky - Hobokenite)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: red sox are laughable.
Date: 4 Jan 93 15:44:21 GMT
Organization: Somewhere in Hoboken


there are several people i know, who were disgruntled
 red sox fans the past 2 years, who have abandoned the red
 sox ship with their recent signings/trades/actions.  however,
 i just heard an interesting thing...

the red sox are supposedly interested in signing jerome walton.

which would give them more outfielders than the rest of the major
 leagues put together.  

- bob gaj
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: king@ssvax.gte.com (Larry King)
Subject: Re: Any news on Frankie Rodriguez?
Organization: GTE/SCSD
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 13:51:26 GMT

King Banaian (kbanaian@bernard.pitzer.claremont.edu) wrote:
: In article <C0C9v6.Hw0@news.iastate.edu> sckelm@iastate.edu (Steven C Kelm) writes:
: >Does anyone have news on Frankie Rodriguez, former number one pick of the 
: >Red Sox?  I vaguely remember that he had converted to pitching from his
: >position at SS, or was this only an experiment?  Where is he now and what
: >is his projected future with the Red Sox? 
: 
: Frankie has indeed converted.  His numbers were 12-7, 3.09 with 148.2 IP, 
: 125 H, 65 BB, 129 K.
: 
: He unfortunately cannot tell the difference between 14 and 18 year old 
: females.  He apparently was caught in corpus flagrante with the former 
: variety and now faces statutory rape charges.  The (very) young woman was 
: not claiming use of force.  I have not heard if the case has been resolved (
: perhaps my friends on the Red Sox mailing list can provide more details).
: 

The case has not gone to trial yet.  Apparently the girl was consenting
but mentioned it to another girl who mentioned it to the father and that
was when things got rolling.  The father and mother of the girl are the
ones who pressed the charges.  Since the law states that any girl under
16 cannot be consenting it goes as statutory rape.  I thought the trial
was later this month.  I am not sure. 

Larry 
--
Larry King
GTE Government Systems, Needham, MA    		(617) 455-3384 
E-Mail : king@ssvax.gte.com
From: genetic+@pitt.edu (Dr. Dave)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Burks and related mediocies
Date: 6 Jan 93 18:49:54 GMT
Organization: Department of Industrial Engineering

Thus spake thf2@midway.uchicago.edu:
>
>In other news, the Braves signed Pecota for something like two years, $1.4M.
>My guess is that they'll be disappointed unless Pendleton is injured.  This
>is the kind of signing that will suck up time from Blauser.  Is Blauser
>really that bad?  What were his DAs?  

Horrible.  Atrocious.  Whatever comes next in the progression "Good, Bad, 
Ugly, ________."

Blauser had BY FAR the worst DA among NL shortstops in each of the years
1989, 1990, and 1991.  We're talking DAs in the .580 range, when the league
is around .630 and the top players around .700 or better.  It doesn't look
like a park or staff effect, either, since Belliard was tops in the NL in '91.

...which doesn't mean you wouldn't still be better off with Blauser at SS,
though, since his bat is so much better than the other options.

-- 
       David Tate        |"Out of the dugout endlessly swinging,
 dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu | Out of the manager's throat, the sound fundamentals,
 Prof. of Story Problems | Out of the six-month season..."            
 Member ORSA, TIMS, SABR | 	Walt "Lefty" Whitman
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball