HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: IO20456@MAINE.MAINE.EDU (Ryan Robbins)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: walt weiss goes 0-0-0-0-0-0-0
Date: 14 Aug 92 18:45:12 GMT
Organization: University of Maine System


 He may have walked, reached base on interference, or been hit
by a pitch, or sacrificed a runner.

+===============================================================+
||   RYAN ROBBINS                    INTERNET:                 ||
||   UNIVERSITY OF MAINE             IO20456@MAINE.MAINE.EDU   ||
+===============================================================+
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: sybesmer@uther.calvin.edu (Eric W Sybesma)
Subject: Re: Emotional Attachment to Teams
Organization: Calvin College
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 18:37:14 GMT

I am a die-hard Twins fan, who moved to Michigan 4 years ago.  I
still follow the Twins as much as I can, but my love for baseball
has grown through the years, as I still cheer for Gary Gaetti,
Frank Viola, Tom Brunansky, and Dan Gladden.  (Not for Jack
Morris, however, that's another story.)

			E.S

--
Home Address and Phone               Internet addresses  
Eric Sybesma   (616) 243-5913        School: sybesmer@uther.calvin.edu
514 E. Burton St.                    Work:  (E-mail only) (616) 241-7280
Grand Rapids  MI  49507                   sybesma@benzie.si.com
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Oriole News
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 15:21:02 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.125914.19419@brtph560.bnr.ca> dbloom@bnr.ca (David Bloom P025) writes:
>Lu says:
>
>>Besides, when you are batting cleanup, it is not that difficult to be in the
>>top 10 in RBIs!  Pete O'Brien had a thoroughly horrible season last season, but
>>he had 81 RBIs.  Murray's OBP is pathetic, and that means that when he walks
>>up there, *68%* of the time he will make an out.
>
>Ok, using this logic I guess if you hit .300, then 70 % of time you
>walk up to the plate, you don't get a hit.

Guess again.  70% of the time you walk up to the plate and 

  don't walk
  don't sac
  don't get hit

you don't get a hit, if you're a .300 hitter.

Some .300 hitters walk 20 times in a year.  Others walk 130 times in a
year.  Frank Thomas is batting .320, but he only gets a hit about 25% of
the time he comes up.

Roger
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: luigi@sgi.com (Randy Palermo)
Subject: Re: What's a cycle?
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 20:19:59 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.155536.2561@rigel.econ.uga.edu> jvariyam@ada.stat.uga.edu (jayachandran n variyam) writes:
>Could someone pl. explain:
>
>  a) In the 15-0 Braves blow out of Pirates there was a
>     mention of L. Smith completing a cycle.  What's a cycle?
>
A player has hit for the cycle when he produces a single, double, triple
and homerun in the same game. In the case of Andres Gallaraga, this is 
measured over the course of the season. 

(for the humor impaired)
:^) :^):^) :^) :^) :^) :^) :^) :^) :^) :^) :^) :^) :^) :^) :^) :^) :^)

>  b) What are the features of a knuckle ball and change-up in
>     terms of the trajectory?
>
A knuckler is thrown with absolutely no spin on it. This causes the ball
to dip and dive in a crazy manner. Others with a much better understanding
of physics then I will undoubtedly provide more detail.

A changeup is thrown with a fastball motion but travels much slower. The
"changeup artist" will be able to control his armspeed at the last possible
instant to do this. There are those who believe, myself included, that the
ability to change speed effectively is as important as a sharp breaking
pitch.

>Thanks. 

My pleasure.

luigi
--
Randy Palermo   luigi@csd.sgi.com    Fax: (415)961-6502
Silicon Graphics Computer Systems, 2011 N. Shoreline Blvd Mt. View, CA 94039
"Play an accordion, go to jail. That's the LAW"
From: bagneltw@newton.ccs.tuns.ca (Trevor W Bagnell)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Guzman!
Keywords: Braves, Pirates, scores
Date: 18 Aug 92 21:10:07 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Technical University of Nova Scotia, Halifax, N.S.



Juan is going to be out for about 4-6 weeks.
The most recent repost says will be out for the remainder of the season and     maybe start in the ALCS.  I'm sure if the jays begin to struggle again, they'll try to push him back into the rotation sooner.

:-)
-mike
From: dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Cy Young Update
Date: 19 Aug 92 17:02:46 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <randall.714091264@moose>, randall@informix.com (Randall Rhea) writes:
> tedward@cs.cornell.edu (Edward [Ted] Fischer) writes:
> 
> 
> >The only Cy Young contender to start tonight was Kevin Appier.  He
> >pitched a complete game for the loss, giving up three runs.  (I
> >believe they were all earned.)  This drops his record to 13-5, and
> >raises his ERA to a *horrible* 2.36!  :-)
> 
> >Appier is 32.2 innings above a 2.00 ERA.  Clemens, with two fewer ER,
> >only needs back-to-back shutouts (one of them a 10-inning job) to drop
> >his ERA below 2.  Both are unlikely, but not impossible.
> 
> Right now, Eckersley is the leading candidate for the Cy Young and perhaps
> MVP also.   I doubt that Appier will win 20, since he would need to
> win almost all of his remaining starts.  The A's are 49-0 in games where 
> he's appeared ...  not too shabby.

I disagree.  If there weren't starters like Clemens and Appier with ERA's
almost at two and outstanding other pitching stats, maybe Eck would get it,
but it's a rarity to see this go to a reliever unless there is no deserving
starter.

> 
> -- 
> 
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> Randall Rhea                                        Informix Software, Inc. 
> Project Manager, MIS Sales/Marketing Systems    uunet!pyramid!infmx!randall

-- 

Dan S.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: tedward@cs.cornell.edu (Edward [Ted] Fischer)
Subject: Re: Cy Yonnd Awards for last place teams...
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 20:12:07 GMT

In article <1992Aug15.162027.12419@newton.ccs.tuns.ca> bagneltw@newton.ccs.tuns.ca (Trevor W Bagnell) writes:
>
> I think Clemens will duplicate this feat again this year. Can you
>imagine if Clemens actually pitched for a team who gave him run
>support(i.e. Toronto or perhaps Atlanta). He'd be 30-4!

Not likely.  He might have 16 wins instead of 14 at this point, but
you can't expect a pitcher to win every time he pitches well.  Not
even on a good offensive team!

>  Guzman, Carter, and Maldonado -------for---->CLEMENS!!
>
> Boston gets a decent young pitcher in Guzman, some decent
>outfielders that don't sit out games for no reason, and some home run
>power.

Huh?  Who sits out games for no reason?  Plantier?  He was benched
several times, but never refused to play (though he should have, as
he was pretty badly injured).  If this is a criticism of Brunansky,
it is a new one.  And Zupcic????  As for Greenwell/Burks, I would
say that being on the DL is a pretty good reason not to play!

>  Toronto get the best pitcher in baseball plus a world series or three.

Actually, the biggest difference that switching them would have made
this year is that Clemens has 4 more starts than Guzman.  You can
argue future consistency, but Guzman has (until this injury) done the
job flawlessly this year.

No, the loss of Guzman and Carter would have hurt them more than the
gain of Clemens would help this year.

Besides, this deal is unbalanced in favor of Guzman because of the
free agency rules.  You can sign Guzman *and* spend that $5 million to
pull down Maddux.  While I would argue that Clemens is better than
either Guzman or Maddux, he certainly is no match for the two of them
combined!

I still wouldn't do it, though.  Clemens is a franchise player.  He
has led the Red Sox from the first year I followed baseball!  I
wouldn't trade him for anything!

Cheers,
-Valentine
-- 
Ob. woof: Clemens is the best pitcher ever!	tedward@cs.cornell.edu
From: frisbee@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov (frisbee)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Giants Roster Difficulties...
Date: 21 Aug 92 16:46:01 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory (NASA)

I know that Heredia got traded to make room for Clayton, but I still
have a problem with the SF roster... USA Today shows the following
players active:

	Beck
	Black   
	Brantley
	Burkett
	Hickerson
	Jackson
	Oliveras
	Pena
	Righetti
	Swift
	Wilson    = 11

	Bailey
	Benjamin
	Clark
	Felder
	James
	Leonard
	Litton
	Manwaring
	McGee
	Snyder
	Thompson
	Uribe
	Williams
	Wood	= 14

	The promotion of Clayton brings the total to 26, Heredia's trade
notwithstanding.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

	Inquiring minds want to know...

			frisbee@devvax.jpl.nasa.gov
From: jasdzews@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Gary James Jasdzewski)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Twins/superstition
Date: 13 Aug 92 06:58:34 GMT

Last night I ate a restaurant that had ESPN on in a corner.  I saw an
update on the Twins/Rangers game and the Twins were up 3 to 2.
Actually I thought it was the final score because Espn had what I
thought was a WP next to Edens' name.  So I was up.

Later, I get into my car and turn on the AM.  It was one of those
nights where stations from Mexico were coming in clear, and I happened
upon WCCO, the Twins' station in Mpls.  I was a bit confused because
it was the top of the ninth, the Twins up 3 to 2, and guess who is in
to "close" the door?

I was not intensely pissed off this time though, because I now believe
that I am in a way responsible for Aggies' blown saves.  I need to be
convinced that this is stupid, ,.bcaogkjarih;wgfa;v  

Anyone have this kind of superstition?
From: grabiner@math.harvard.edu (David Grabiner)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: ANSWER: RULEBOOK TRIVIA 15
Date: 14 Aug 92 14:04:14 GMT
Organization: Harvard University Dept. of Mathematics
In-reply-to: Ryan Robbins's message of Thursday, 13 Aug 1992 23:53:00 EDT

In article <92226.235300IO20456@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>, Ryan Robbins  writes:

> RULEBOOK TRIVIA 15's play was as follows:

> With one out in the top of third inning with a runner on first, the
> batter hits a liner into left center field that drops in for a hit.
> Rounding the second base bag, though, the runner from first misses
> the bag, scoring on the play. The batter-runner trots into second.

> Noticing that the runner from first missed touching second base,
> the second baseman asks for the ball from the third baseman and
> makes an appeal to the second base umpire, who quickly declares the
> runner from first out.

> As the official scorer, how do you score this play in regards to
> the runner and the batter-runner? Who gets credited with what and
> why?

> THE CALL
> The batter-runner is charged with a time at bat, but receives no
> credit for a hit, as a preceding runner failed to reach the first
> base to which he was advancing (Rule 10.06). Because this is an
> appeal play, no assists and no put outs are recorded.

There is no rule in the book which says not to award putouts and assists
on an appeal play.  On the contrary, the rule for balancing a box score
requires that there be one putout for every out.

Rule 10.10(b) specifies that no assist should be credited on various
plays on which a runner is put out without a fielder's attempt to put
him out, such as interference.  The putout must still be credited, in
this case to the fielder with whom the runner interfered (unless the
fielder was making a throw).

When a fielder catches a thrown ball which puts a runner out, he gets
credit for a putout, and the thrower or throwers get an assist.  Thus we
score a putout to the second baseman, and assists to the third baseman
and whichever outfielder handled the ball.


--
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: kbos@carina.unm.edu (Kurt Bose "of Biscayzee")
Subject: Re: Phillies/Orioles Trade(Scarsone/Bell)
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 92 17:08:16 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <23627@oasys.dt.navy.mil> hambric@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Stephen Hambric
"of the Kenny Harrelson fan club") writes:
>In rec.sport.baseball, kbos@carina.unm.edu (Kurt Bose "of Biscayzee") writes:
>
>->Oh, bull and/or oney.  The trade of Eddie Murray cleared the way for Randy
>->Milligan, who played better than Murray in '89, almost as good in '90, and
>->better in '91.  Guess who's playing better in '92.  Now take a wild guess and
>->tell me who got paid more. How much more? Think it was worth it?  Didn't thin
>->so.  I'd rather have had Ken Hill, but the Murray trade was a pure case of
>->addition by subtraction. The play of Phil Bradley and Brian Holton was gravy.
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Now this makes perfect sense, trading something for nothing.  I suppose
>you think Tettleton for Jeff Robinson was a great trade too.  After
>all, it gave Hoiles an opportunity.  The next time Roland Hemond, super
>genius, comes up with any great trade ideas, I hope he can get a 2nd
>baseman out of it.
>
Er...I seem to recall that nobody really *wanted* Murray that much.  Just what
could *you* have gotten for him.  I'll tell you.  Bill Bene, that's who.
What teams were out there who had better offers?  Detroit could have used him,
perhaps, but what pitcher would you want from them besides Robinson?  Do you 
honestly believe you could have gotten someone like Fryman???  Cleveland and 
Chicago (WS) could have used improvement, but Cleveland reputation aside, why
would they want Murray???  Over in the NL, it's the same story.  The only teams
who needed Murray were too far out of it to pick up the bill.  Except LA. And
contrary to popular belief, the deal was not just "Murray for Bell and some toss
ins".  In fact, my personal opinion at the time was that Bell was the easiest
player for LA to give up.  Why? They had Fetty, of course.  Holton had a great
1988 season, and Howell was coming off a hellacious year in Albuquerque.

The only fault I find with Roland Hemond's trading record is a nasty proclivity
towards dealing for gimpy players.  Tibbs, Dubois, Robinson, Howell, Davis...
they all had injury problems before Hemond, they all showed good talent before
Hemond, they all retained their injury problems after he got them, and he has
tended to get rid of them soon after.  Only Davis is playing well now, and we
all know his problems.  


-- 
Kurt Bose (as in Daisy, not Rose) - kbos@carina.unm.edu - I'm not the AntiChrist
I AM the AntiWoofer. - Junior Stathead{tm} - I'm a shutmouthed, selfless idiot!!
Latest Attempted Compiler of the R.S.BB FAQ - Now Accepting Submissions...(hint)
Have you hugged a Dan Gladden fan today? - Dave Rossing : .531/54/214 at Denver!
From: gene@ok.sw.stratus.com (Eugene Loparco)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Mattingly & Murray vs. Milligan  was: Re: Oriole News -
Date: 18 Aug 92 14:44:31 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Stratus Computer, Software Engineering

In article <1992Aug17.192806.15977@leland.Stanford.EDU> claudius@leland.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu) writes:
>In article <5605@transfer.stratus.com> gene@ok.sw.stratus.com (Eugene Loparco) writes:
>
>>How is Milligan having an above average year and Murray a subpar year for
>>first basemen?  Last time I checked Milligan was having a pretty mediocre
>>year FOR ANY POSITION, let alone first base.  And although I don't have any
>>stats in front of me, I thought that Murray was having a decent year.  Are
>>you one of those walk devotees who thinks that a walk is the most important
>>offensive stat there is?  That's the only way I can understand your statement.
>
>Murray:		.323 OBP, .421 SLG
>Milligan:	.394 OBP, .362 SLG

I would take Murray with his .421 slg, higher batting average and more RBI's
any day over a "slugger" with a .362 slg.  The ONLY thing that Milligan is
doing better than Murray this year is walking.  Now I understand where you
are coming from.  I don't value a walk as much as you and most people on the
net do.


>
>Milligan's stats, although hardly earth-shaking, is hardly mediocre.  Murray,
>however, makes an out 68% of the time he goes up there.  That won't do.

I would say a .245 avg and a .362 slg is VERY mediocre.  So what that Murray
makes an out 68% of the time, it's what he does the other 32% of the time
that's important (alot of extra base hits and RBI's).  Milligan gets out 61%
of the time and is hardly productive the other 39% of the time.  Last time I
checked he had under 45 RBI and very few extra base hits (as is evident by
his .362 slg).

>
>A walk is definitely *not* the most important thing out there.  It is much

Then I don't understand your claim that Milligan is better than Murray.

>less important than homers, triples, and doubles, and somewhat less than
>singles.  However, when you are not walking and are not hitting, you eat up
>bundles of outs.
>>
>>This will probably clear things up...
>>
>>Who's having a better year, Randy Milligan or Don Mattingly?
>
>Milligan.  No doubt about it.

That's what I thought.  In my opinion, Mattingly is not only having a far
superior year than Milligan but he is having a good year for any first baseman.

Did you ever think of defense as an important aspect of the game?  Your first
post said nothing about Milligan being better than Murray OFFENSIVELY.  You 
just stated that he was better.  This means that you factored in defense.  
So would that make you reconsider or do you still hold the same views?


-Gene
From: west@esd.dl.nec.com (Mike West)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: "Discarded" Giants (Re: Jeff Brantley sucks!!!)
Date: 19 Aug 92 21:01:08 GMT
Organization: NEC America, Engineering & Support

From article <1992Aug19.161509.25039@novell.com>, by bradley@novell.com (Brad Soe):
> In article <4200335@hpcc01.corp.hp.com> boell@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Donald P Boell) writes:
>>(Mike West)
>>>Before anyone castigates the Giants for "giving up on" or "discarding"
>>>these players, remember the circumstances:
>>
>>>Lefferts - He was a free agent who did not want to stay in SF.  
>>
>>He wanted to stay with SF.

Again, the entire quote was that he did not want to stay in SF because
he wanted to be the closer; he was not happy being a setup man.
SD had just lost Mark Davis to free agency, and so when they offered
him the closer's job, he jumped at it.  He had nothing against SF
per se, just that they were not offering him the job he wanted.

And please note that he did *not* succeed at that role in SD.

>>                           SF made it clear that they did not think
>>highly of him by going after Righetti.  I think salary was an issue as
>>well - this despite the fact that Lefferts had been doing the job for
>>SF.  This swap of Lefferts for Righetti has been a total disaster.  Last
>>year Lefferts had better numbers than Rags.  This year he does as well.

This is incorrect.  Righetti was not added until the beginning of the
91 season.  Lefferts left after the 89 season.  Righetti had nothing
to do with Lefferts leaving.

>>In fact, in a year where the Giants needed another starter, Lefferts would
>>have filled the bill.  I doubt that Lefferts was even offered a starting
>>role by SF management.

No one even thought of starting him until he had completely failed as
an effective reliever for SD, plus they were short on starters.  He
was never offered a job as a starter because neither SF nor Lefferts
ever thought of it.  Besides which he probably would not have accepted
it because he wanted to be a closer.  It was only after he had failed
at that when he began exploring other roles (to keep his ML job).

> I would not call this a swap. Lefferts was gone after 88 season (Maybe 87).
> The Giants were relying on Brantley to be the closer. It did not work out
> well so the Giants got Bedrock in the middle of '89. Rags did not 
> come along until 1991? 

Lefferts left after the 89 season.  Bedrosian was gotten during the
89 season because SF was appearantly not happy with any of their
relievers in the role of the closer.

While it is true that Brantley came was on the 89 roster, he was
*purely* a middle reliever - he had *no* saves that year.  It wasn't
until 90 when SF had soured on Bedrosian that he was put into save
situations.  So Brantley had no direct influence on Lefferts
leaving either.

Again, the main issue with Lefferts was that he wanted to be the
closer and SF didn't think he was good enough *for that role*;
they wanted to use Bedrosian instead.  They still wanted Lefferts,
but as a setup man, not the closer.

Mike West
west@esd.dl.nec.com
From: pcaster@mizar.usc.edu (Dodger)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Dodgers Suffer 30th One-Run Loss--Ramon Brilliant!
Date: 16 Aug 1992 09:38:16 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: mizar.usc.edu

The Dodgers lost 2-1 last night despite a brilliant effort
by Ramon Martinez.  Martinez, for the first time ever, was
throwing an excellent curve ball, a pitch he has been
working on for years, but has never thrown effectively.

For the first 4 innings, Ramon had a no-hitter going.
In the 5th, he walked the first (and only batter he walked),
then gave up two "cheap" singles to load the bases.  With
two outs and a 3-2 count, McGee singled in 2 runs.
Ramon struck out 6 of the last 7 batters he faced, lasting
7 innings and giving up just those 3 hits and 1 one in the
5th, and nothing else.  He struck out 9.

Meanwhile, Wilson struggled, yet got the win.  He gave up
4 walks and 7 hits in his 6 innings.  The Dodgers had
lots of scoring opportunities but could only manage
one run.  In one inning, Sharperson was called out for
running outside the base path.  He had hit the ball to Wilson, who
threw wildly (in the dirt) to first base.  But instead of an
error, Sharpy was called out.  The next two batters singled,
so Sharpy would have scored.  This was typical of how the
evening (and year) has gone for the Dodgers.  On the other
hand, the Dodgers got a break in the first.  Offerman led off
with a single and Eric Young singled with Offerman aggressively
taking third.  According to Don Drysdale, Offerman was out at
third, but he was called safe (Young took second on the throw).
But with runners at second and third and one out, all the Dodgers
managed was one run on a sacrifice fly by Webster.

Both bullpens were brilliant....I don't think either team
got a hit after the starters left the game.

					BleedsDodgerBlue

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: What's with Eric Hanson?
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 23:12:31 GMT

In article <5530@transfer.stratus.com> gene@ok.sw.stratus.com (Eugene Loparco) writes:
>
>Can anyone in Seattle shed some light on why Eric Hanson is having such a
>dreadful year?  Does he have a nagging injury?  Has he lost all of his
>confidence?  Has he lost his wicked curveball?  Or does he just suck (ie.
>he doesn't know how to "pitch", just how to "throw")?  Or is it a combination
>of the above?
>
>-Gene

I watched him last night from a good vantage point.  For the first
two innings he looked like the EH of old.  After that, he got
pounded.  The difference?  His velocity dropped noticeably after
the second inning.  When the batters can get their timing,
even his sharpest curve can be hit (although Dave Valle still
can't catch it).  EH missed his last start because of sore
arm problems; apparently, these problems are not solved.

-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |   "Winning cures everything."          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |     -- The Fabulous Sports Babe        |
| sieferme@u.washington.edu |                                        |