HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kiviat@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Brian Kiviat)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Errors (was Re: Robinson and Boyer)
Date: 13 Apr 92 16:52:04 GMT
Reply-To: kiviat@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Brian Kiviat)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

>
>Yes, but we know that without errors.  Chances = PO + A + E.  Thus,
>Murphy has 698 PO + A, while Lucy has 600.  Why do you even need to
>bring the errors into it?

NUMBERS these are just numbers!
Even though I will be flamed big time for my next statement, I'm tired
of this whole thing.

Baseball is a GAME played by humans on imperfect fields (except for
that evil turf stuff in the NL) <--flamable comment one.
These fields are open to the arbitrary forces of nature, sun, wind,
and rain.
It cannot be said that because of the equation:

RFT*q/45+BBA/.999-H=VALUE of player A

Sure stats can be fun, BUT they are not an exact science and neither
is the game. Nobody can tell me the full value of a player is in a bunch
of numbers. These are a bunch of guys playing a game, not robots on
an assembly line. We cannot find the total number of reject parts player
A manufactures and in that number find his "value". <--Flamable comment
two.

I fell better now that this is off my chest,
Brian
See ya at Camden Yards
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: baxtman@zephyr.cair.du.edu (Captain Chaos)
Subject: Yankees pitching
Originator: baxtman@zephyr.cair.du.edu
Organization: University of Denver
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 92 03:52:45 GMT

Who do the Yankees have for their pitchers these days.
I know they still have a perez and Sanderson but
other than that I am lost.

Yankees Will win the Series again......   Someday

Captain Chaos


Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: scott@asd.com (Scott Barman)
Subject: Re: What do the numbers mean?
Organization: American Software Development Corp., W. Babylon, NY
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 17:23:12 GMT

In article <167C66791.O1DOUG@AKRONVM.UAKRON.EDU> O1DOUG@AKRONVM.UAKRON.EDU (Doug Miller) writes:
>5). 61*  - In 61 by Maris, note the astrix......Ruth fan.
       ^
It's been removed.  Who cares if you are a Ruth fan, it's still THE OFFICIAL
record!

-- 
scott barman			|            LET'S GO METS!
scott@asd.com			|            LET'S GO METS!
				|            LET'S GO METS!
 (I can barely speak for myself, you expect me to speak for my employer??)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: 91287041@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca ( )
Subject: Re: DUMB inexcusable play
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Laurentian University, Sudbury, ON
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 16:12:26 GMT

In <204666@unix.cis.pitt.edu> dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu (David M Tate) writes:

>The intimidation effect, if any, doesn't have to do with Coleman's success
>rate, but rather in how effective the pitcher will be at getting batters out
>while Coleman is on the bases.  That wouldn't show up in SB success rates.

the "intimidation effect" also shows up in more fastballs and pitchouts
which are intended to lower Coleman's success rate.

can't believe I am being sucked into this...

>But, if you prefer, you can think of that comment as merely tossing a bone to
>the Keepers of the Intangibles :-).



>-- 
>          David M. Tate            |"The man who hath no music in himself
>     dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu       | Nor is not moved by concord of sweet sound
>  A poem should be dumb, / As old  | Is fit for treason, stratagems, and spoils
> medallions to the thumb.-MacLeish | 	Shakespeare, "Merchant of Venice", A.V
-- 
roger l. maynard                              
91287041@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca             
Sudbury Ont.                                
Canada
From: odp@ldgo.columbia.edu (carl brenner)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: DUMB inexcusable play
Date: 10 Apr 92 14:29:47 GMT
Organization: Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory

In article <204666@unix.cis.pitt.edu>, dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu (David M Tate) writes:
> In article <1992Apr9.162439.15235@lamont.ldgo.columbia.edu> odp@ldgo.columbia.edu (carl brenner) writes:
> >In article <204617@unix.cis.pitt.edu>, dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu (David M Tate) writes:
> >

> >	I think your methodology is sound, Dave, but you're surprisingly
> >vague on the numbers. I don't mean to be picky, but it's odd to hear you,
> >of all people, talk in terms of ".03 or .04 expected runs." Why the lack
> >of certainty? 
> 
> No smiley, so I'll assume that this is curiosity and not sarcasm.  


	Yes, it was curiosity. I certainly did not mean to sound sarcastic.
You are usually very precise.


> As for "lack of certainty", the error in the situational expected value
> numbers is rather larger than the .01 expected run difference here.  The
> point of the exercise was to show that there *are* conditions under which
> Coleman's attempt is not a bonehead play: namely, when you're sufficiently
> certain of not getting caught.


	I agree, but I just don't believe that you demonstrated that those 
conditions were met in this particular situation. If I'm manager of the Mets,
Vince is reprimanded for this move. (Actually, if I'm manager of the Mets,
Vince probably doesn't play too much.)


> >	I would also respectfully submit that talk of "intimidation" on
> >the basepaths is difficult to quantify, or is already factored into Coleman's
> >success rate. Again, I'm surprised to hear you talk in such terms.
> 
> The intimidation effect, if any, doesn't have to do with Coleman's success
> rate, but rather in how effective the pitcher will be at getting batters out
> while Coleman is on the bases.  That wouldn't show up in SB success rates.
> 
> But, if you prefer, you can think of that comment as merely tossing a bone to
> the Keepers of the Intangibles :-).


	Ack! Apostasy!! :-)


> -- 
>           David M. Tate            |"The man who hath no music in himself
>      dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu       | Nor is not moved by concord of sweet sound
>   A poem should be dumb, / As old  | Is fit for treason, stratagems, and spoils
>  medallions to the thumb.-MacLeish | 	Shakespeare, "Merchant of Venice", A.V


Carl Brenner
From: rsmith@strobe.ATC.Olivetti.Com (Russ Smith)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Hisle (walks?)
Date: 9 Apr 92 15:58:01 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Olivetti ATC; Cupertino CA, USA

In article <1992Apr09.150815.14345@cpqhou.compaq.com> carlr@cpqhou.UUCP (Carl Rempert) writes:
>What this tells me is that although the ability to walk is somewhat important,
>it is far more important to be able to hit.  Hitting philosophies aside, run
>production is more directly influenced by the ability to hit than the ability
>to walk.

I haven't seen anyone suggest that the ability to walk is more important than
the ability to hit. Only that the willinglness to take a walk can make a low
average hitter as valuable or more valuable than a higher average hitter who
doesn't walk (McGwire vs. Lansford). I think what people who advocate walks are
saying is that not only will you get on base more, you'll probably be a better
hitter because you'll be swinging at better pitches.



Russ Smith
*******************************************************************************
"If this were at all legible, you would see what I'm talking about"

                            Chevy Chase in Fletch 
******************************************************************************




Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: silber@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Ami A. Silberman)
Subject: Re: Cubs Win! Cubs Win! Cubs Win!
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 21:22:01 GMT

snichols@adobe.com (Sherri Nichols) writes:

>I don't want to flame you for this, either, but nobody mentioned the wind.
>Wrigley is a good hitter's park; the wind is one possible explanation for
>it.

Another reason is that fewer games are played when shadows are a factor.
(Fewer early evening night games.)  The biggest factor might be the size of
the foul territory, Wrigley has almost no space bettween the foul line and
the fans past the infield, and darn little inside.
-- 
ami silberman - janitor of lunacy
	silber@cs.uiuc.edu
From: dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu (David M Tate)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: More Sierra vs. Clemente
Date: 7 Apr 92 21:46:40 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

Here's a more systematic comparison of Sierra vs. Clemente.  For each
player, I've listed yearly PRO+ and RC, and then for Clemente I've listed
his best three other seasons, and what age he had them at.  Career averages
are given at the bottom (Sierra to date, Clemente overall).

(For the record, PRO+ is basically OPS adjusted for park and era, while RC
 is a cumulative stat based on how many runs a team of 9 clones would have
 scored in the same amount of opportunity.  PRO+ is on a scale of league
 average = 100, with more being better.  RC is on a scale of runs scored.)

		Clemente	 Sierra

	Age   	PRO+   RC	PRO+   RC

	 20	 76    46	106    51
	 21	105    72	102    85
	 22	 72    41	 99    77
	 23	 96    67	146   122
	 24	 91    52	109    85
	 25	121    87     c.130 c.126
	 26	148   119	???   ???

	 31	146   119
	 32	170   126
	 34	170   109

	Avg. 	130    87	116    92


Suffice it to say that Sierra, while not as good as Clemente eventually
became, is well ahead of Clemente's pace in getting there.

It's interesting to note that the T&P rating system, which includes batting,
baserunning, and defensive runs, would not have awarded Clemente *any* MVP
awards, even in '67 when Clemente hit .357/.402/.554, was 9-1 in stolen bases,
and worth an alleged 9 runs playing RF (17 baserunner kills and 4 DPs started).
They rate both Ron Santo and Henry Aaron ahead of Clemente that season, with
Santo being the (overlooked) best player in the league, primarily on the
strength of being an alleged 30+ runs above average at 3B.

-- 
          David M. Tate            |"The man who hath no music in himself
     dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu       | Nor is not moved by concord of sweet sound
  A poem should be dumb, / As old  | Is fit for treason, stratagems, and spoils
 medallions to the thumb.-MacLeish | 	Shakespeare, "Merchant of Venice", A.V
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: karaki@jarthur.claremont.edu (Kurt*z* S. Araki)
Subject: Re: Red Sox vs. Jays
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 1992 10:46:29 GMT

In article <1992Apr4.005436.14902@berlioz.nsc.com> roger@thoreau.nsc.com ( Roger Wakefield) writes:
>Juan Guzman is yet another guy that looks likely to fall substantially
>from 1991.  Without him they would not have won, and anyone who thinks
>Morris is going to pitch like Guzman did is kidding themselves.

What about Joe Hesketh though?
I think the likelyhood of Guzman falling substantially is the same
as Hesketh's... just a thought though... Go Sox, by the way.

--
"Jack, relax. Get busy with the facts. No zodiacs or almanacs, no
 maniacs in polyester slacks. Just the facts. Gonna kick some gluteus
 max. It's a parallax, you dig? You move around, small gets big, it's a
 rig. It's action, reaction, random interaction. So who's afraid of a
 little abstraction. You can't get no satisfaction from the facts. You
 better run home boy, a facts a fact from Nome to Rome, boy."
			    Peace to you -- KSA
From: pcaster@mizar.usc.edu (Dodger)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Ramon, MRI, Crews, Comments, and a Question
Date: 6 Apr 1992 22:25:23 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: mizar.usc.edu

Back during Spring training, the Dodgers ASKED Ramon Martinez
to have an MRI to determine if their is any shoulder damage or
other damage to his arm.  He refused, saying there was nothing wrong
with his arm, he was just trying out pitches and pitch selection he
would never use during the season.
Today he gave up 3 runs (should have been much much more) in less
than 3 innings.  He made 64 pitches after just 2 innings.  He flat
out stunk.
What I don't understand is this:  Why can't the Dodgers (or any team)
INSIST a player have an examination to determine if anything is wrong?
With what they pay in salaries, the teams have a right, it seems to me
to protect their assets.  An MRI is a harmless procedure (no radiation
threat, as with CAT scans).  I know...I've had two myself.  There is
NO REASON why a team should not know conclusively if a player has
an injury that could be repaired.  Dr. Jobe said that if Fernando had
allowed an MRI on his shoulder, they could have better diagnosed his
problem and he suspects Fernando had a similar problem to Orel's.  Who
knows...maybe Fernando would be pitching today if he had allowed the MRI.
Now Ramon is costing the Dodgers two ways...a loss today, and using up
the whole bullpen by exiting during the third inning.  Candelaria
pitched great in relief, but had to be used over 2 innings.  Candy faced
more batters today than the whole second half last year!  (Just kidding,
but seemed that way.)
What do you think?  Shouldn't a team be able to insist on a complete medical
exam if one seems warranted?  I say the Dodgers should put Ramon on the DL
until he has the MRI and they figure out what is wrong with him.
As for Crews....those who know me know I have questioned his ability many
times.  I prayed the Dodgers would trade him (to the Yankees :-) ) or
some other unsuspecting team in need of a middle reliever.  No way Crews
is better than Kip Gross, who they sent down Sunday.  Crews came in
today and promptly gave up 5 runs, taking a close game and turning it
into a laugher for the giants.  What do the Dodgers possibly see in
this guy?  And please don't quote ERAs to me.  Crews GENERALLY sports
a pretty low one (not after today, of course) but ERAs don't measure
inherited runners allowed to score, and Crews is FAMOUS for that.

				A Disappointed Dodger
From: zuhars@madrone.eecs.ucdavis.edu (Gary Avenue Of Shattered Skulls Huckabay)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Eckersley NOT better than Fingers
Keywords: Look it up.  I'm tired of talking to deaf hamsters.
Date: 15 Apr 92 23:53:42 GMT
Article-I.D.: ucdavis.12268
Organization: People Rooting For Ron Darling, Inc.

(Gary L. Blickhan) writes:
}gajarsky@pilot.njin.net (Bob Gajarsky) writes:
}
}>lesson #1 in baseball history.  rollie fingers STARTED his career as
}> a starter.  after doing POORLY as a starter, he got a "second chance"
}> (something many players don't get), dick williams (i think) moved
}> him to the bullpen.  
}
}That is just complete, unbacked, nonsense!!!!!!
}
}1968- 1 G, 0 GS
}1969- 60 G, 8 GS
}1970- 45 G, 19 GS
}1971- 48 G, 8 GS
}1972- 65 G, 0 GS
}
}In over 200 games, Rollie started only a few games in the beginning of his 
}career.  Consult the facts first!!!

With no due respect, Blickhan....

Isn't this the pot calling the kettle black?  We've posted TONS of
evidence showing that Eckersley was a GOOD starting pitcher.  We've
shown that his 1987-1991 beats the hell out of any five year span of
Fingers'.  (And that's what I originally said - and that was ALL.)

Yet you choose to ignore it.  

Stop being such a ****ing hypocrite.  You've lost this one.  It's
over.  Happens to everyone.  Pull yourself together, and move on.
When you start telling people to do what you refuse to, you make a
fool of yourself.  Get it together.


-- 
*   Gary Huckabay   * "You spent 5409 points out of 30,000 on ONE player?" *
* "Plays 'Over My   * "On Frank Thomas."  "No one's worth THAT much."      *
* Head' better than * "This from someone who spent 3028 on Jay Buhner?     *
*  Bubbles Lundy."  *  Blow me a kiss, sweetheart.  Eat my dust." - GH & BL*
From: roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Rickey Henderson v Nolan Ryan -- Stat-head call to arms!
Date: 15 Apr 92 17:29:54 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU

In article <1992Apr15.103009.951@gacvx2.gac.edu>
 klund@guajillo.gac.edu (Kevin T Lund) writes:
>In article <204924@unix.cis.pitt.edu>  writes:
>> I'd rather have dinner with Nolan Ryan; I'd rather *watch* Nolan Ryan.   
>I'd
>> rather have owned the rights to Rickey.

>Are you sure?  Ryan causes a lot less problems than Rickey for his teams.   

Looks like the Oakland organization hasn't exactly crcked underthe
strain.  

>No contract problems, etc. 

Well, Houston just up and released Ryan...they DID crack under the
strain.  Actually, I remember Ryan's contract being an object of
controversy, too, at one point.

> Also, whenever Ryan pitches the stadium has a  
>major increase in attendence.  

Very recent phenomenon, that.  Not true for the first 20 years of his ML
career.

>Plus, if you have the rights to Ryan you  
>can also have dinner and watch him too.  Personally, I'd rather have Ryan  
>on my team than Rickey, even if Rickey _was_ better than Ryan.

So you'll have a nice, fun, congenial team that finishes second.  OK by
me, boss.

R
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: rjs@home.merit.edu (Robert J. Skrobola)
Subject: Re: More on errors and hits
Organization: Merit Network, Inc.  Ann Arbor, MI
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 92 22:28:37 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.225111.14611@adobe.com> snichols@adobe.com (Sherri Nichols) writes:
>This bit of research thanks to my husband David.
>
>Effect of first event in inning; 84-91, both leagues
>
>Inn. starts      Prob. >= 1      Avg. number 
>with a              run           of runs
>-----------------------------------------------------------
>single		   0.428	  0.855
>walk               0.432          0.865
>error              0.441          0.867
...
>
>
>This was done in part to explore the notion that giving up an error was
>worse than giving up a hit because of the psychological effect on the
>pitcher.  Another motivating factor was the usual sportscaster's lament about
>how awful it is to give up a leadoff walk (as if you'd rather do *anything*
>than give up a leadoff walk).   

The numbers are pretty close. It wouldn't seem the difference is that 
signifigant...Whaddya think?

			Rob

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------
Rob Skrobola      Institutional File Server Project
Normal Disclaimer: I speak only for myself
-----------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: todd@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Todd Pedlar)
Subject: Re: MATT YOUNG TOSSES NO-HITTER, LOSES 2-1
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 03:19:52 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.022436.20357@mv.mv.com> mem@mv.mv.com (Mark E. Mallett) writes:
>In article <1992Apr13.001022.29645@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> todd@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Todd Pedlar) writes:
>>Nope.  You can lose and still get credit for the no no if you pitch the 9 
>>innings - Hawkins' game was in Chicago, I think, so he only threw 8...
>
>I understand "no no" to mean "no hits, no runs."  Is there a dialect
>of baseball-speak in which this is not so?
>
>-mm-

picky picky picky...   

probably, though, it is so... perhaps my semantics are off, or perhaps the
brand of baseball-speak I've spoken is unorthodox... in my
experience, a no-no is either... maybe I should have just taken the time to
write out no-hitter...? :)

tkp



______________________________________________________________________________
Todd K. Pedlar                   ! 
Graduate Student                 !      "Damn it, Jim, I'm a physicist,
Nuclear Physics                  !
Northwestern University          !              not an engineer!"
                                 !
GO U NU!                         !  
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: rickert@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (John H. Rickert)
Subject: Re: Trivia: What to the numbers mean...?
Reply-To: rickert@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (John H. Rickert)
Organization: Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 20:54:36 GMT

In article <92099.185021GRM100@psuvm.psu.edu> GRM100@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
> Here's a bit of trivia from our college paper...
> 
> Give the significance of the number and the player
> who holds the record.
> 
> 1) .424      Highest BA maybe
Highest single season 20th century BA by a qualifier for the batting title
Rogers Hornsby
> 2) 2.17      lowest era
Lowest career era (with sufficiently many innings pitched) since (about) 1913
(that's when they started counting ERA officially)
Walter Johnson
> 3) 56        \
Most consecutive games played in which at least one hit was achieved in
each game
Joe Dimaggio
> 4) 57        /  Is one of these 50's, Hershisers inning streak
hmm... dunno right now. I wonder why it looks familiar.
(yeah, Hershiser was 59IP, Earl Webb hit 67 doubles....)
Maybe most world series games played in by a player during his career
Mickey Mantle (or was it Yogi Berra?)
> 5) 61
Most homeruns by a batter in a single season
Roger Maris
> 6) 190
Most RBI by a batterin a single season (official record)
Hack Wilson
> 7) 511
Most games won by a pitcher in his career
Cy Young
> 8) 755       HR career?
Most HR by a batter in his career
Hank Aaron
> 9) 5511      Hits career?   Pete Rose?
Most strikeouts by a picher in his career (through 1991)
Nolan Ryan (how many did he have the other day?)
> 10) 7
Many things. They're probably looking for
most hits by a batter in one nine inning game
Rennie Stennett
Wilbert Robinson did it too, but that was in the 19th century,
and nobody talks about that.

john rickert
The Brewers' magic number is down to 162 !
My AL East picks: Bos, Tor, Det, Bal, Mil, NY, Cle
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: snichols@adobe.com (Sherri Nichols)
Subject: Re: Oakland A's Dream Team
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 15:44:25 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.115909.2494@otago.ac.nz> guilford@otago.ac.nz writes:
>In article <1992Apr8.170109.1848@adobe.com>, snichols@adobe.com (Sherri Nichols) writes:
>
>> In conjunction with their celebration of 25 years in Oakland, the A's held
>> fan balloting last year for the Oakland A's dream team, for fans to pick
>> the best players who had worn the green and gold of the Oakland A's.  The
>
>> 3B	Carney Lansford		Sal Bando
>> 
>> Actually pretty similar.  Lansford hits for higher average, Bando walks
>> more, about the same power.
>
>Not even close.  Bando probably had at least 4 years (`69, `70, `71 and
>`73) that smoke Carney's best year for the A's (which, throwing out
>1989, or merging 1989 with the year before and after, is probably
>1984: OBP .342 and SP .439).  Bando averaged .275, 100 walks and 25 homers
>over those 4 years.

Looks like Bando had the better peak.  I was looking at career numbers when
I did this, figuring since Lansford's at the end of his career, and both
spent considerable time in Oakland, that this was reasonable.

>> DH	Dave Parker		Dave Kingman
>> 
>> Yes, he was obnoxious, but he did hit better than Parker did in Oakland.
>
>Kingman had the one good year in `84, but he was worse than Parker
>in `85 and bad beyond the power of human understanding in `86.  Edge
>to Parker.  I'd vote for Billy Williams.

Well, it's not like Parker had more than one half-way decent year for
Oakland, either.  And Billy Williams also only had one half-way decent year
as a DH for the A's.  His second year, he slugged a mighty .339, giving him
an OPS that year of .662, which is *worse* than than Kingman's OPS of .685
in the year you describe as being bad beyond the power of human
understanding.  It's true that both Parker and Williams put up better OBAs
than Kingman, but Kingman also hit for better power than either one of
them.  Kingman's OPS of .827 in 1984 is clearly the best season put up by
any of these guys.  His 1985 season (.727 OPS) is worse than the best
season put up by Parker (.740)  or by Williams (.760), but it's better or
comparable to their second seasons (.727 for Parker, the aforementioned
.662 for Williams).  And he hit his 30 homers every year.  

Sherri Nichols
snichols@adobe.com

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball