HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell)
Subject: Re: Bonds "choke"?
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 21:53:15 GMT

In article <92276.182246RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu> <RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu> writes:
>this kurt bose dude said, "i agree with everything except point number
>two" (probably paraphrased).
>
>point number two was (probably also paraphrased) "some humans react well
>to pressure, some humans react poorly to pressure."
>
>that boggles my mind.
>
>you're saying that it is NOT true that some humans react well to pressure
>and some humans react poorly to pressure?  wow.

No, he's saying that it's ridiculous to take the space of all
human beings and then assume that baseball players are all a perfect
sample of the set of all human beings.

The mere fact that a player can make it through the minors and survive
to become one of the 250 or so people in the world that have regular 
starting jobs in the majors shows that they are people that react well
to pressure.

If I were to say that some people are 5'0" and others are 7'0", and
therefore you would expect to see a lot of 5'2" players in the NBA
you would (justifiably) laugh at me.

Why is it any different to assume that people who react poorly to
pressure make it to major-league starting jobs?

Why do you think a World Series at bat would be any more stressful than
the at bats that determined whether Barry Bonds would make it out of AA-ball
in the first place?  Or keep his job in the majors the first few months
he was up?  Maybe a Don Mattingly or a Pete Rose or a Cal Ripken can
keep their jobs slumping for three years straight, but anyone else
will lose their job in a month or two at most.  Every at bat in the major
leagues is pressure-ful.  Read Ball Four for Jim Bouton's feelings when
getting a major league start for a last-place expansion team.  Keep in
mind that this is a player that won a number of World Series games.

>i wonder why valium does such a business.
>i wonder why there are firemen.
>i wonder why some people get shell-shock.
>i wonder why some people DON'T get shell-shock.
>i wonder why some aspiring actors get stage fright their first time out,
>  and never step on a stage again.
>i wonder why people kill themselves.
>i wonder many things, now that you have informed me that pressure doesn't
>  influence different people in different ways.

It doesn't influence ballplayers.  If it did, then they wouldn't be
ballplayers.

It's like asking why it is we can be certain our brain surgeons aren't
illiterate, even though so many adults need literacy training.
-- 
ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu 
also at quibeaux@uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
ajax crypto-analyzer -- warning! remove all chicken bones first
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: lsmith@deci.cs.umn.edu (Lance "Squiddie" Smith)
Subject: Re: Arrogance, Statheads, and Life.
Organization: The Arrogant Squids of the Poor
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 20:32:37 GMT

You know, it takes a lot of arrogance to think 20,000+ (what is the population
of this group these days?) people give a fig for what your opinions are. Yet 
every time most of us post we include some bit of opinion. I just did it
with my first sentence. 

So we're all arrogant, self-righteous comp nerds (ASRCN) and as soon as we
get used to it the better. If you don't like what some person says, ignore
them. There's no law that says you must argue with people or even read their
follow ups to your articles. If they offend you, just hit that 'n' key.
Just walk away from it. 

Are some posters rude? Why of course! But if you haven't been in an argument
about baseball where someone disagrees with you strongly and maybe even 
says, "you're crazy!" then I think you've been spending too much time 
reading this newsgroup. 

Look, if we didn't all care about baseball, we wouldn't go to the trouble
of trying to convince someone that their views were somewhat misguided.

ObBaseball: At this point I'd rather the Twins sign Smiley than Kirby.
I'm not too happy about a 4 year contract, but given the choice I'd
prefer Smiley. It also means I wouldn't have to put up with the juvenile
crowd in the upper deck.
--
     Lance "William Blake?" Smith     |   "Bring me my bat of burning gold!
         (lsmith@cs.umn.edu)          |    Bring me my pine tar of desire!
 "The Cat. He walked by himself, and  |    Bring me my glove! O clouds unfold!
    all places were alike to him."    |    Bring me my fastball of fire!"
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell)
Subject: Re: Expos logo
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 03:13:13 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.181906.861@mala.bc.ca> epp@mala.bc.ca (Lorne Epp) writes:
>I think it's supposed to be a big multicolored "M" with a little red "e".
>It's a pretty sad logo.  What I want to know is what made them call the
>team "Expos"?  Obviously it's because of Expo 67, but why did they think
>anybody would care about that 25 (or 50 or 100) years from then?

Indeed.  And when was the last time you saw a streetcar to dodge in Brooklyn?
If you think about it, most team names are silly.  "Marlins" and "Rockies"
seem especially silly to me, but that's only because I've never known
baseball without 26 teams, thus "Padres" or "Expos" didn't sound any stranger
than "Yankees" or "White Sox."
-- 
           .. . . .  .  .   .    .     .     .    .   .  .  . . . ..
          ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
         the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: snichols@adobe.com (Sherri Nichols)
Subject: Re: Why bother to watch the World Series?
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 18:41:14 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.175240.14804@leland.Stanford.EDU> daveshao@leland.stanford.edu (David Shao) writes:
>Of all the major sports in the United States, major league baseball
>has the most illogical and capricious system of determining home
>field advantage in the playoffs.  Since 1987, starting with the
>Twins, the team with both the home field advantage in the LCS and
>the World Series has won the championship.  

But divisional play has existed since 1969.  Why did you cut it off at
1987?  

>Without even noticing what the teams did this season, all I have to
>know is that the Braves won their division in order for me to predict
>with confidence that they will win the World Series.  

This system wouldn't have worked very well for most years.  In fact, it
would have failed to predict the correct winner 15 times out of 23 times.
Yes, it would have predicted the last 5 in a row.  But it would have had a
stretch from 1971 to 1984 where it failed to predict the correct winner a
single time.

Sherri Nichols@adobe.com
From: genetic+@pitt.edu (Dr. Dave)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: AL Game Score Report through 9/21 Part 1
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:20:03 GMT
Organization: Department of Industrial Engineering

Thus spake mjw@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Michael Wolverton):

>In article <6412@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> genetic+@pitt.edu (Dr. Dave) writes:

>>Such work has been done
>>on Defensive Averages so far indicates that most of a pitcher's contributions
>>seem to come in HR's allowed, strikeouts, and walks.  

>Could you summarize this work?  I did a little study a few months ago
>which indicates exactly the opposite (and someday I may even get
>around to posting it :-), 

Please do.  I'm way out on a limb here, and wouldn't be too surprised to
be shown to be quite wrong.

>so I'd be interested in hearing about any
>other results.  I'm aware of some number crunching that Nick Flynn
>posted here a while back.  Is there anything else?

I was mostly thinking of what Nick did, and the discussions around it.  I
though I remembered a general dissatisfaction with Nick's method, but that
there was other evidence (though scanty) to support the claim.  Certainly
the stability of defensive averages, as players move from one team to
another, argues a bit in favor of equal difficulty of opportunities across
pitching staffs, but this may not extend to individual pitchers.

-- 
       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
Date: Tue,  6 Oct 1992 11:44:30 -0400 
From: Bill Thomas <bt16+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Incentive for fourth place?

 
The final AL East standings were:
                                   Home  Away    Last10  Stk.
>x-Toronto    96  66  .593  --     53-28 43-38    7-3    W-3
>Milwaukee    92  69  .571   3 1/2 53-28 39-41    8-2    L-1
>Baltimore    89  73  .549   7     43-38 46-35    6-4    W-2
>Cleveland    76  86  .469  20     41-40 35-46    4-6    L-2
>New York     76  86  .469  20     41-40 35-46    4-6    L-2
>Detroit      75  87  .463  21     38-42 37-45    4-6    L-3
>Boston       73  89  .451  23     44-37 29-52    6-4    W-2
 
Won-Lost record shows that the Indians tied with the Yankees (so does
Home, Away,
Last10 and Streak, in an amazing coincidence, unless the UPI screwed up).
My question is:
 
    Who is officially fourth? Or is it officially a tie? Is there a
tie-breaker, such as head-to-head, for anything other than first place?
(In fact, I don't think there's any tie-breaker in baseball for even
head-to-head; there's a one-game playoff, right?)
    Also, is there any incentive for finishing higher than last place,
but not first, other than pride (in short, do the players divide up
decreasing amounts of cash)?
From: larrow@novell.com (Les Arrow)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Randy Johnson
Date: 29 Sep 92 16:39:20 GMT
Article-I.D.: novell.1992Sep29.163920.8161
Organization: Novell Inc., San Jose, Califonia

>Do any of you Seattlites know the story? Did Plummer just decide to pull him,
>or did Johnson ask to come out, or what? Considering that Nelson came in to
>start the 9th, and proceded to blow the game, what harm could it have done
>to give Johnson a chance? Considering where the Mariners are finishing this
>year, it seems like a possible record would mean more to the Mariners than
>one more potential last-place win.

I don't know the story, but I tend to agree with you. Unless Johnson was
in pain, or asked to be taken out, they probably should have let him 
continue. Of course, 160 pitches is a lot, so maybe the coaches just didn't
want to take the chance on getting him injured. I would have liked to see
him stay in.

>Gammons made an interesting comment on BBTN last (Sunday) evening. He said that
>Gene Clines (Mariner batting coach?) arranged for Randy to spend a couple of
>hours with Nolan Ryan back in August sometime. Since that point RJ has had
>something like 115 strikeouts in 79 IP, with an ERA around 2. Has the tall-one
>finally found himself?

That's interesting and may not be coincidental. Of course, the problem with
Johnson (other than the fact he's ugly as sin) is that he walks too many
batters. His control is awful. I'd love to see the season he could put
togther if he could get those base on balls down. I don't think it will happen
though. 

--Les
From: poutsmaj@mace.cc.purdue.edu (unknown)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Bonds "choke"?
Date: 5 Oct 92 00:05:49 GMT
Organization: Purdue University

>On the other hand, if Larry Bird normally shoots 75% from the FT line,
>he'll miss two of two 6.25% of the time even if he shoots the same
>under pressure as when not under pressure.
>
>Does that mean he "chokes" 6.25% of the time?  If so, what good is
>the verb "choke" if all it indicates is random chance?
>-- 
If Larry Bird were to miss two free throws (ie both free throws) 6.25% of
the time something would be up.  If I remember right, Bird was about 90%
free throw shooter (at least for the few years)./  Make that 1% of the time
and then it sounds about right...

But then, this is baseball so why worry about dribblers

:):):):)

paul
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: sweda@css.itd.umich.edu (Sean Sweda)
Subject: Re: Bonds "choke"?
Organization: University of Michigan ITD Consulting and Support Services
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 01:32:33 GMT

In article <48202@shamash.cdc.com> jblixt@mips.COM (jon blixt) writes:
>First of all, I'm not saying Barry Bonds choked.
>
>I do, however, have a fairly simple question.
>
>Is there such a thing called choking and does it occur?
>

of course, a good example would be Larry Bird missing two free-throws
while trailing by 1 point.  While we certainly can't expect Bird to
never miss two in a row, given his skill at shooting free-throws, we
can reasonably expect him to make at least one...

>IMO, I answer yes to both questions.  To me, choking is not
>performing a skill which you regularly accomplish given different
>circumstances.
>
>I base my opinion on my own experiences.  When playing semi-competitive
>sports, I have been in situations where I could choke.  I may not
>have experienced a large statistical sample, but there have been enough
>to know what they are and when they happen.  During these so called
>choke situations, I have, for example, missed three straight putts of
>under three feet any of which would have beaten my opponent in a match
>play tournament.  I missed those puts, not because statistically the
>odds worked out that at some point I will miss three short putts in a row,
>but instead I missed them because of the pressure of the situation.
>

seems like a good definition to me...


>Also, IMO, baseball is not exactly like my example because there
>are more variables(i.e. different pitchers, different conditions, and 
>an average batter only gets a hit less than a third of the time anyway).
>So perhaps baseball is not the easiest yardstick of the great and
>ghastly 'choke', it is still a place to fail mentally.
>
>-Jon


Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: Jim Pinkelman <James.K.Pinkelman.1@nd.edu>
Subject: Pleeeeease Post Final NL Stats
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A6F5F101D101401E@jpinkelman.aero.nd.edu>
X-Xxdate: Mon, 5 Oct 92 13:17:53 GMT
Organization: University of Notre Dame
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d9
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 18:06:13 GMT

There are a number of us who don't have access to Downloadable
Stats.  We would really appreciate it if someone would post these
stats when they become available.  I'm interested in NL Stats 
(including games and errors) , and I'm sure there are those who 
are interested in AL Stats.

Thanks way, in advance>
From: genetic+@pitt.edu (Dr. Dave)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Bonds "choke"?
Date: 2 Oct 92 15:24:23 GMT
Organization: Department of Industrial Engineering

Thus spake jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com:

>In article <bhap-jg@lynx.unm.edu> kbos@carina.unm.edu (Kurt "Some  
>Guy" Bose) writes:
><RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu> writes:
>> >i just can't see how you can deny any of the following statements:
>> >   1) ballplayers are humans, not robots.
>> >   2) different humans react differently to pressure.  some react  
>> >      well, some react poorly.
>> >   3) there is a hell of a lot of pressure during the post-season.

>> Okay, I agree with every point except number two. 

>You disagree with the second point (that some folks do better under
>pressure than others).  I can walk around my office an
>identify easily some people who want to hide under their desk
>when the pressure gets high and others who thrive on it and 
>do their best work in the final week before a deadline.

Perhaps what Kurt should have said was "I'm not convinced that number two
is true in the context of major league baseball".

>Logically, this pressure must be present in baseball, also; 

The pressure, yes; the "normal" human range of responses to pressure, no.

As Roger Lustig has pointed out, all of these guys have been carefully
selected, throughout their entire baseball lives, for the ability to play
baseball well UNDER PRESSURE.  There is absolutely no reason to assume, a
priori, that the top fraction of a percent of such players in the baseball
world (which is what we're talking about) show the same sort of range of
behaviors in the face of pressure that the population at large shows.

>the
>players are human, after all, and there's no reason to assume
>that some won't act better under pressure than others.

Yes, there is.  Well, not "assume", but at least suspect.  We *know* that
there is a mechanism at work that prevents any *real* chokers from getting
to the major leagues at all.  You might as well say that, since eyesight
varies from great to rotten in the population at large, there are probably
some fighter pilots who are blind as moles...


-- 
       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
From: brea9430@mach1.wlu.ca (breadner kenneth cecil joseph u)
Subject: Re: Morris Season begins Wednesday
Organization: Wilfrid Laurier University
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 16:43:48 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.020134.26890@cs.yale.edu> shapiro-david@CS.YALE.EDU (David Shapiro) writes:
>
>   Ah, here we go again. Are you trying to say that A pitcher who went 21-6 on
>   the year had a "minimal contribution"? Geez, how many wins do you need to
>   really help your team?
>
>Well, gosh, just suppose that a relief pitcher comes into a game with
>the bases loaded and gives up a grand slam, proceeding to then give up
>a few more runs, before finally getting the final out.  His team then
>scores 10 runs in the bottom of the inning (or top of the next) and he
>is given the W.  Is this an effective pitching performance?
>
>Likewise, is it the mark of a good starting pitcher to consistently
>give up 3-5 runs early, sometimes more, and then wait for his team to
>score even more runs for him?  Not likely.
>
I believe this has been done to death, but I care not.

Morris is a great starter. If you watch him, he will pitch damn near
unhittably when it counts. His attitude is "all right, go ahead and hit my
pitch. I don't give a damn about my ERA, anyway." He pitches to the
scoreboard, which is how all pitchers should pitch! Yes, he gives up a lot
of runs, but usually this happens when his team is already ahead. Put him in
an NL-style 1-0 pitching duel and he will keep it that way (I believe he won
a 1-0 game this year). 
As soon as a game gets close, that's when Morris' arm starts to really pick
up. This technique of "saving himself" is going to give him about five years
longer in the spotlight than the alternative, which is throwing you hardest
pitch EVERY pitch.


-- 
Ken Breadner	brea9430@mach1.wlu.ca (the BREADbox)  ...
Wilfrid Laurier Day Care Centre--oops, University, Waterloo, Ontario
Opinions are probably mine, but if they aren't, well, they aren't.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: genetic+@pitt.edu (Dr. Dave)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Which team is most improved???
Date: 2 Oct 92 14:12:06 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Department of Industrial Engineering

Thus spake crobbins@lonestar.utsa.edu (Chris S. Robbins):
>
>Lets start a debate.  Which team has improved the most this year.

The Expos, I think.

What's scary is that they're a good candidate to be one of *next* year's
most improved teams, too...


-- 
       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
From: paul@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Paul R Krueger)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Morris: more fuel for this debate
Date: 5 Oct 1992 18:02:55 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4

In article <1992Oct4.163534.17892@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> drw3l@delmarva.evsc.Virginia.EDU (David Robert Walker) writes:
>In article <BvKnKz.J9L@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu> mlstocku@zeno13.math.UWaterloo.ca () writes:
>>of his gamemanshipon the mound. Players respond to this atmosphere he creates
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>when he is pitching. I believe he really should be considered for the Cy Young
>
>If this is true, he should have had above-average run support
>throughout his career. Can anyone check that?
    
    I know when I praise Morris for his "big-game" ability, I don't    
    necessarily mean over his whole career. It takes awhile before you
    can develop that reputation. Maybe it took last year's playoffs to
    bring him that rep. and maybe his teammates are responding.

>Also, as others have said before: You have 162 games, and they are all
>equally important. They don't actually get more important in Sept. A
>game you win between April and August is a game you don't have to make
>up in September. 
     
     True, but the pressure is much greater in September. You can't compare
     any game from the first three months to a game in late September for
     pressure if you're playing for a division title.

     --salty


Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: jjook@fraser.sfu.ca (Jessica Jook)
Subject: Re: Why bother to watch the World Series?
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 06:02:11 GMT

In article <20983@plains.NoDak.edu> sivaram@plains.NoDak.edu (Sivaram Hariharan ) writes:
>Why not alternate the Home-field advantage in the playoffs
>every 2 years...while continuing to alternate the HF advantage 
>every year for the World  series.
>
      
     I suggest that the Home-field advantage should be awarded to
the team that has the best record.  In that way, it will encourage
the teams play better baseball even they are about to clinch/or have
clinched the division already.    It is also more fair, and lesser
change for a poorer team to win purely because of playing at home.

    Any thought??>
>Which means.......
>
>Year 1......... AL(W) & NL(W) have HF in playoffs and AL has HF in WS.
>Year 2......... AL(W) & NL(W) have HF in playoffs and NL has HF in WS.
>Year 3 .........AL(E) & NL(E) have HF in playoffs and AL has HF in WS. 
>Year 4 .........AL(E) & NL(E) have HF in playoffs and NL has HF in WS.
>
>SO that both divisions will have years in which they have the HF
>in both the playoffs and the WS, have years in which they have HF
>in one of them and years in which they have advantage in none.
>
>OF course, it then renders series sweeps as meaningless. For example,
>the Jays after taking a game from the TWins at the Metrodome were
>1-1 and had taken away the HF from the Twins. However, the Twins
>ended the story at Toronto, while always being in danger of getting
>blanked in the Sky-dome.
>
>S.H
>Forever Twins
> 

     --Ray--