HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dgh2@quads.uchicago.edu (Doug Huffer)
Subject: Re: Ottawa AAA (was Re: Marlins/Rockies Minor League Teams)
Reply-To: dgh2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 18:44:58 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.123822.15614@bcrka451.bnr.ca> jimdean@bnr.ca writes:
>> BTW, the AAA expansion was a total joke. OTTAWA, a city that's NEVER
>> had a baseball team to speak of, a city without a stadium, for that 
>> matter, bgets an expansion franchise??? 
>
>It is O.K. to be pissed off, but please get the facts straight. Ottawa
>was in fact a AAA city in the late 40's-early 50's. I believe we had
>affiliations with the Cards and the Giants but may be wrong about
>that. You are correct that Ottawa does not have an AAA quality stadium
>but the one that is now being built will be a gem.  And it is almost
>downtown, too.

Actually, Ottawa had a Class C team ( at least in 1950, according to 
my 1951 Baseball Encyclopedia).  They were in the Border League, 
which was started in 1946.  Don't have affiliations or team names.  

Following table from same source: 

City		Population 	Stadium		Attendance 
Auburn, NY	 36,667		 2,500		55,634
Geneva, NY	 17,087		 1,800		67,259
Kingston, Ont 	 30,126 	 3,500		38,671
Ogdensburg, NY	 16,126		 2,800		58,749
Ottawa, Ont	215,022		12,000		78,577
Watertown, NY	 34,280 	 4,500		61,026 	

Enjoy ;) 

>Jim Dean (Internet: jimdean@bnr.ca) +-----+    National Capital Baseball League

--
dgh2@quads.uchicago.edu     ||  Official Baseball Rules, 1.04, (Con't # 8)  
From home base, measure 90 feet towards first base; from second 
base, measure 90 feet towards first base; the intersection of these lines
establishes first base.   
From Baseballs Official Rules, 1992 edition.  Without permission, of course.
From: g_waugaman@nac.enet.dec.com (Glenn R. Waugaman)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Rocket Roger, Enfant Terrible
Date: 28 Jul 92 16:29:12 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


In article <28JUL92.15182791@vax.clarku.edu>, hhenderson@vax.clarku.edu writes...
> 
>It's just that Roger's behavior problems dismay me.  They indicate
>the immaturity that is his tragic flaw. In many cases, his outbursts
>are just plain stupid.  They are unbecoming of a future Hall of Famer
>(no big deal to some people) but when they jeopardize the fortunes
>of the Red Sox, they are unforgivable.

I don't see anything particularly unusual about Clemens' behavior when you
measure it against that of most baseball players.  The Boston media
has a distorting effect.  How does throwing a couple of hamburger buns at
a certified scumbag stack up against the turmoil that enveloped the New
York Mets with David Cone and Doc Gooden earlier this year, or the Wade
Boggs fiasco of a couple of years ago, or any number of other supposedly
"unforgivable" incidents that have been blown out of proportion mostly to
sell newspapers?  It's insignificant. 

I've had the privilege of being able to witness Clemens' entire career, 
and the only time I've had any second thoughts about his behavior was 
after the Terry Cooney incident in the playoffs, but even those were
erased when Fay Vincent confirmed, for the record, that Cooney's version
of events *before* the ejection was "mistaken".  After the ejection,
Clemens went ballistic.  So what?  I think he had a right to be upset (I
sure was, and the TV commentators felt that the ejection was a farce), and
at that point he certainly wasn't going to damage his team any further. 

Hey, Clemens is no Tom Seaver when it comes to being publicly gracious and 
well-spoken, but very few are.  I do think he's a decent person from what 
I've seen and heard (again, assuming that unlike many elitist Bostonians
you don't associate decency with intelligence and demean a person simply
because he doesn't speak well and demonstrate proficiency in all the
social graces).  As for jeopardizing his team, I'd love to see a few more
guys who can give the Red Sox a near-automatic 250 quality innings per
season.  Since he's been in the league, no one has been more durable and 
consistent, so your standards for being ready and willing for the team
must be pretty high... 

---
Glenn Waugaman
Digital Equipment Corporation
Littleton, MA
g_waugaman@nac.enet.dec.com
---
From: csquared@coos.dartmouth.edu (Christopher M. Cohen)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Most fascinating ballpark?
Date: 30 Jul 92 20:30:10 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <30JUL92.18325792.0096@UNBVM1.CSD.UNB.CA> AB47@UNB.CA (Don Soucy) writes:
>One problem with Fenway is that it's getting very run down.
>The concession area, the old seats, the bathrooms, all could use a
>few dollars of investment.
>
>
Amen!!

C Squared
--
There was my patrimony: not the money, not the tefillin, not the shaving
mug, but the shit.                                        -- Philip Roth
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: ledzep@wam.umd.edu (John Henry Bonham)
Subject: Re: Grand-slam trivia
Keywords: Trivia, homerun, grand slam
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 05:58:08 GMT

What th ehell. Don Mattingly?
From: pstinson@pbs.org
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: NL realignment:now what?
Date: 24 Jul 92 10:50:47 EDT
Organization: PBS:Public Broadcasting Service, Alexandria, VA

If the Cubs stay put, now what?  The next best plan would be for the Cardinals
to switch to the west as planned and the Braves to play in the east division.
Since the Cubs aren't moving, then the Reds stay were they are also.
(Having Cincinnati remain in the west, is less illogical than keeping Atlanta
there.  And by the way, the Chicago White Sox play in the WEST, maybe the
Cubbies have never noticed. :-)
From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Value of Stats
Date: 27 Jul 92 19:08:09 GMT
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com

In article <1992Jul27.162336.17085@encore.com> jlundy@bilbo.encore.com  
(Joe Lundy) writes:
> In article <1992Jul27.153614.27645@adobe.com>, snichols@adobe.com  
(Sherri Nichols) writes:
> |> In article <1992Jul25.030944.22822@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca>  
91287041@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (roger maynard) writes:
> |> >Forget about Salazar.  Who would you rather have: Bonds or Puckett?   
Playing
> |> >for an underdog Kirby has two rings.  Playing for a favourite Bonds  
has
> |> >zip.
> |> 
> |> Why do you think that number of World Series rings is a useful  
determiner
> |> of value?  It takes a lot of luck to get through two 7-game series
> |> successfully.  Ernie Banks never got a World Series ring.  Ted  
Williams
> |> never got a World Series ring.  Does that make Kirby Puckett a  
better
> |> player than Ted Williams?  Is Mickey Hatcher a better player than  
Ted Williams?
> 
> Better yet, is George Zeber a better player than Roger Clemens?  Must  
be...
> How about Fred Stanley?  George Frazier?  Have to be better than Tony  
Gwynn and
> Dave Winfield.  In the case of Mickey Hatcher, doesn't he have *two*  
rings?
> That makes him better than a lot of guys	:-)
> 

Both you and Sheri seemed to have missed several points in Roger's
statement.  He never said "more rings" equals "better player."

What he said was more like: Take two players who are comprabable
(in fact, in another post, he admitted that he'd even give Bonds
the edge here).  One plays on a very good team.  The other plays
on a better-than-average team, but one whose overall talent is
less than the first team.   Yet the better-than-average team
wins two titles, while the very good team wins none.  Given this,
who would you take for your team?" (Note: NOT who is better)

Granted, you can't blame what happened to Pittsburgh the past couple
of years on Bonds. However, on the other side of the coin, I think
you CAN give a bit of extra credit for the Twins overachieving
to Puckett.  This extra added edge you get from Puckett is what
makes the choice between the two men much harder than it would
be if all you based your choice on was what was in the stat sheets.
There Bonds clearly has the edge.  Puckett's extra's make it 
a close call, and it would depend upon the existing makeup of
my team as to which of the two I'd chose.

--
Jim Mann       jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com  Stratus Computer
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: ron@osf.org (Ron Birnbaum)
Subject: Re: More Rocket Bashing
Organization: Open Software Foundation
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 18:10:54 GMT

In article <29JUL92.21531172@vax.clarku.edu>, hhenderson@vax.clarku.edu writes:
|> Yes, Roger Clemens is probably the best pitcher in baseball -- during
|> the regular season.  Stop me if I'm wrong, stat fiends, but I consider
|> his post-season performance to be underwhelming.  If he pitched in
|> October against a championship team the way he pitches, say, in April
|> against the Mariners, I doubt that the year 1918 would hold such
|> dismal significance for Red Sox fans.
|> 
|> There are many possible reasons for Roger's ineffectiveness in the
|> post-season.  (Drum roll, please -- the Baseball Psychiatrist is
|> In.) 


  Maybe we just don't have a large enough sample of Clemens post-season
  performance to be statistically significant. And I don't think he was
  healthy for the '86 Series. Would someone post all of Roger's post season
  stats? 

-Ron

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: nss3@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Noel Steere)
Subject: Re: Trendy Terms (was: Sexy Baseball Players and Fraternities!!)
Reply-To: nss3@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 08:59:10 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.040128.29158@news2.cis.umn.edu> kirsch@epx.cis.umn.edu (Dave Hung Like a Jim Acker Slider Kirsch) writes:
>In article <4176@equinox.unr.edu> schnell@pyramid.unr.edu (Dan Schnell) writes:
>>
>>First, we had the postings about statistics, the term "stathead"
>>was coined.
>>
>>Then, we started seeing posts about which player had the best
>>behind, and the "buttheads" :) first appeared.
>>
>>Now, we have "fratheads".
>>
>>Maybe next:
>>	- which team has the best head wear, "hatheads"
>
>  How about which team has the best Canadian players, "hoseheads"? 
>
>  Or which team has the largest number of sex crime offenders that also used
                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>performance enhancing drugs at one point, "Steereoids"? 

Hey!  That was years ago, and Mom wasn't supposed to show those
pictures to anybody!

Noel Steere                  |...of the Dave Rossing fan club
GM/Manager, New York Knights |Knights' Run Total: 467 Runs in 93 games
Internet Baseball League     |Projected Season Total: 813  Target: 1000!
nss3@midway.uchicago.edu     |HECTOR VILLANUEVA FOR PRESIDENT
                             |(Heck, the Cubs sure aren't using him!)


>-- 
>Dave Kirsch                                                Jeff Kent for ROY 
>kirsch@epx.cis.umn.edu                        "Blue Jays all the way in '92"  
>"Try new Fortenberry wine coolers, with a biting bitter taste" - Noel Steere
>Slanguage dictionary: maynard - "to insult with disdain and contempt" 


Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: Don@wang.com (Don Rivard)
Subject: Re: Rocket Roger, Enfant Terrible
Organization: Wang Labs Lowell Ma
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 19:42:30 GMT

In article <Bs455q.Jpt@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> peppler@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Randy Peppler) writes:
>Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
>Path: wang!das.wang.com!ulowell!news.bbn.com!usc!sdd.hp.com!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!peppler
>From: peppler@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Randy Peppler)
>Subject: Re: Rocket Roger, Enfant Terrible
>Message-ID: <Bs455q.Jpt@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
>Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
>References: <1992Jul28.160020.16072@nntpd.lkg.dec.com>
>Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 19:08:00 GMT
>Lines: 27

>In article <1992Jul28.160020.16072@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> g_waugaman@nac.enet.dec.com (Glenn R. Waugaman) writes:
>>
>>In article <28JUL92.15182791@vax.clarku.edu>, hhenderson@vax.clarku.edu writes...
>>> 
>>>It's just that Roger's behavior problems dismay me.  They indicate
>>>the immaturity that is his tragic flaw. In many cases, his outbursts
>>>are just plain stupid.  They are unbecoming of a future Hall of Famer
>>>(no big deal to some people) but when they jeopardize the fortunes
>>>of the Red Sox, they are unforgivable.
>>
>>I don't see anything particularly unusual about Clemens' behavior when you
>>measure it against that of most baseball players......


>        This arguement reminds me of how Bob Knight can do no wrong
>        in the eyes of the typical Hoosier.  The end justifies the
>        means...

>        Someone mentioned that Clemens is the best pitcher in baseball.
>        Is he really still?  I think he's slipping (at least that's
>        a perception - I'm sure some numbers will prove me wrong)...

>-- 
>-------------------------------
>| Randy Peppler               |
>| Illinois State Water Survey |
>| peppler@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu    |
Roger is still the best pitcher in baseball. He is not slipping the 
people	behind him are. The Red Sox are just not playing very good 
ball period. I think if you dug up some of the stats for this 
year, and find how many games Roger left when he was winning, 
only to have that great bullpen of the Sox blow the lead, you 
would be surprised. The Sox bullpen has been horrible this 
year when coming in after Roger has pitched his usual 7+ 
innings ball. Jeff "trade bait"	Reardon alone has blown at least four 
games for Roger. So to say that Roger is slipping is very misleading. 
No he won't win the CY Young this year, maybe 20 games, but 
he is still the best. Although the way Tommy  "I wish you were a RED 
SOX" is pitching these days he is giving Roger a run. OH YEAH my 2 
cents on Greg Maddux (sp?) being the best and worth $35 MILL,
Sheeh, "When monkeys fly out of my butt"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
	
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: 91287041@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (roger maynard)
Subject: Re: Value of Stats
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Laurentian University, Sudbury, ON
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 20:07:54 GMT

In <1992Jul27.121025.3390@wvnvms.wvnet.edu> nflynn@wvnvms.wvnet.edu writes:

>In article <1992Jul25.030944.22822@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca>, 
>91287041@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (roger maynard) writes:

>	Of course the problem with the intangible is that they are intangible.
>You can't measure them, you can't even prove they exist.  So if you are trying
>to compare players, they are of no value.  Now, in the real world they might
>be extremely valuable. 

The real world?  What does this mean?  Isn't baseball part of the real world?
When a manager is trying to decide on a pinch-hitter, is this a real world
application?  Is he entitled to consider the intangibles in this case?

>                       The advantage of statistics is that you can quantify.
>So you can say that Barry Bonds might be 20 runs/game better than Puckett
>according to the statistics - so at least you can see what the size of the 
>intangibles must be for them to make the two players equivalent.  

No argument here.

>	I think many of the reactions like yours are brought on by the 
>"statheads" making definitive statements about player's worth.  Real statheads
>understand that all their numbers are only an approximation of the truth.
>The fact that baseball statistics seem to function in a pretty coherent 
>pattern (i.e., there are predictable relationships between them ) seems to
>imply that, in most cases, intangible have a negligible impact.  In a certain
>case they might have a huge impact and statheads are often reluctant to 
>concede this.

"Real Statheads"?  We ALL "understand that all their numbers are only an 
approximation of the truth".  We disagree only on the accuracy of the
approximation.

>	On the other hand, the anti-statheads tend to make rather outrageous
>claims for intangibles.  Worse than this, they often claim that they can 
>recognize who has these intangible qualities and who doesn't which of course
>is absurd.  Often this kind of opinion is just parroting of mediot babble.
>Maybe the player with the intanglibles on the Twins is Greg Gagne.  Maybe
>it is Tom Kelly.  Why should it be Puckett?  Because he smiles a lot and 
>looks cute on TV?  Come on...

It could be Puckett because he is a player who stands out on a team
that seems to know how to win.  In most human endeavors - and I don't see
why baseball should be any different - the total seems to be greater than 
the sum of its parts.  Is that difference merely luck or something more?
I think that for many "Anti-statheads", the difference is explained more
through a humanistic understanding of human experience rather than some
foolish imbibing of media hype. 

rm

>					Nick Flynn

-- 
roger maynard                    
91287041@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca
From: rstimets@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (robert and stimets)
Subject: Re: 6 hits in inning without scoring
Organization: Indiana University
Distribution: rec
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 06:47:38 GMT

In article <18792@drutx.ATT.COM> bew@druwa.ATT.COM (WeissBE) writes:
>
>dgh2@quads.uchicago.edu (Doug Huffer) writes
>>Can a team get six hits in an inning and not score a run?? (Remember, based
>>on 1951 rules, so scoring may have changed since then, I'm not sure.)   
>
>Following is a puzzle that Hal Lebovitz, formerly of the Cleveland
>Plain Dealer, periodically posed, but never answered in the newspaper:
>
>How can a team get 3 triples, 1 double, 2 singles, and 2 stolen
>bases in their half of an inning without scoring?  He claimed it
>actually occurred in a minor league game.  I will send the
>solution later.
>


Here's my stab at a solution:

B1 triples and gets thrown out at home trying to stretch it out to four.
B2, highly empressed by B1's hitting (if not his running) smacks a triple
  but overslides third, getting tagged out.
B3, not wanting to be considered a total moron, holds up at second after his
  gapper hits the wall.
B4's surprise bunt catches everyone off guard for a single, but R3 invokes the
  dubious rule of thumb about 'becoming the third out at third' and stays at
  second.  The manager is furious at R3 and replaces him with S1.
S1 and R4 steal third and second respectively, then
B5 hits a looper into shallow right for a single, but the S1 and R4 don't
  advance.
Now here comes the clincher...
B6 hits a long, high fly ball to the deepest part of the very large stadium.
  He charges the bases as fast as his little legs can take him, but S1, R4, and
  R5 all hold up between third and home to see if the ball will be caught (I know
  there are two out, but the third base coach had had a few too many gatorades
  out in the parking lot before the game.  At least he CLAIMED they were 
  gatorades).  Anyway, the ball drops as R6 approaches third and F8 retrieves and 
  launches a rocket towards home.  Now the third base coach wakes up and waves
  the runner in, but alas the other three runners have stopped to celebrate just
  a moment too long, and R6, as expected, passes R5 for the third out.

An alternative (and more likely) clincher...

B6 hits a long fly to the deepest part of a very large stadium. S1, R4, and R5
  trot the bases, B6 stops for a standup triple.  But Wait! The catcher signals
  for the ball and appeals to home, but the umpire denies the appeal, score now
  Defense 5, Offense 4.  But Wait!  The defending manager is going nuts about
  the ridiculous call at home and gets thrown out.  That doesn't shut him up, nor
  does it get him to leave the field, so the umpire calls a forfeit.  Final score
  9-0, give all the players credits for the hits in the inning but not the runs.

Ok?

RStimets 


Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: claudius@leland.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu)
Subject: Re: MLB Standings and Scores for Wed, Jul 29th, 1992
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 17:09:15 GMT

In article <Bs6vqy.Jv5@news.cso.uiuc.edu> yl44729@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Rick Lin ) writes:
>claudius@leland.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu) writes:
>
>>In article <Bs68uK.DH5@news.cso.uiuc.edu> yl44729@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Rick Lin ) writes:
>
>>>For your information, the Cubs are only 3 1/2 (pending the outcome of the
>>>Expos-Cardinals, possibly 4 games out) games out of first place.  Bring out
>>>them brooms!!!  SWEEP!!!   I'd say the Cubs chances are very good now.  Best
>>>staff ERA in baseball and if their hitting start to come around (20 runs in
>>>3 games against the Pirates), they'll be tough to beat.  GO CUBBIES!!
>
>>Dream on.  A team with Andre Dawson as one of its better offensive players
>>is doomed to be low-scoring.
>
>All this coming from a California Angels fan?  Now that's a team out of    
>contentions! 

At least unlike you, I am not dreaming that Junior Felix (a player very much
like Dawson) is a top offensive player.

===============================================================================
GO CALIFORNIA ANGELS!
Committee to Elect Johnny Ray as Angels Second Baseman
Committee to Elect Mike Witt as Angels Ace
Committee to Elect Cookie Rojas as Angels Manager
===============================================================================
Nelson Lu (claudius@leland.stanford.edu)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: jm0i@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (JOSEPH ALOYSIUS MCVEIGH)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: All 6th-best team
Date: 28 Jul 92 18:41:35 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

dtate+@pitt.edu (David M Tate) writes:

[Cutting to the chase]

>Let's cut to the chase.  Here's a possible team of 6th-bests:
[...]
>       SS      Howard Johnson          Mets
[...]
> Interesting, isn't it?

I think that's the word for it, yes. A gutsy placement.


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Aloysius McVeigh  | "From Hell's heart, I stab at thee. For Hate's sake
       "N.I.N.A."        |  I spit my last breath at thee..." - John Milton
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: wilbanks@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Dylan Wilbanks)
Subject: Minor Leagues: Texas, Arizona (moving to Colo.?)
Keywords: rangers minor league tulsa
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 04:16:51 GMT

For years, I've been hearing strange rumours about the Texas 
League expanding by two teams or else moving lousy franchises 
to other cities. Among the ones I've heard kicked around are 
Pueblo, CO, Round Rock, TX (a 'burb of Austin), Springfield, MO,
and a west Texas city, either Lubbock, El Paso, or Amarillo. Now 
with expansion coming to the Show, the rumors are getting louder,
among them the league office moving to Tulsa. Will there be a 
shift anytime soon? 

Along the Tulsa line, I've heard a lot of talk about AAA, esp. 
since they wuz robbed by the expansion committee (WHY OTTAWA?).
The Royals AAA team (now in Omaha) is on shaky ground, and the 
Z's in Denver of course have no home after next year. However, 
the strangest lil story I've heard is that Texas LOVES Tulsa 
and HATES OKC, and that the 89ers might move up the turnpike.
Considering the management in Ok. City doesn't see eye-to-eye
that often with Arlington and that Tulsa blew OKC out of the 
water again in attendance, it wouldn't be too surprising to me.
Has anyone heard any news/rumour on any of these topics?
On a minor realignment in general?

Also, the Arizona League is talking about moving to the High 
Plains, extending from Cheyenne and Ft. Collins to Scottsbluff
in the east, Grand Junction in the west, and Pueblo in the south.

Opinions?
-- 
Dylan Wilbanks, Classics major, AND NOW Environmental Conservation!
"Look! An X-man movie's coming out!"          |Currently at:
c.10 year old in a Tulsa movie theater,       |Box 1143
looking at a poster for _Malcolm X_           |Boulder, CO 80306