HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 18:30:35 -0400 
From: Craig Steven Lyga <cl3l+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Oh Cone-da!

     What is this? Eric Hillman pitches his second straight good start
yesterday and boom! David Cone is up in Toronto with the Blue Jays.
Didn't the Mets learn anything from  the Royals about trading Cone ( Ed
Hearn and Rick Anderson )?
     The Mets traded Cone for Jeff Kent and a player to be named later.
Now I'm not going to say I'm a great follower of the American League but
JEFF KENT!!??!!  I had never heard of the guy until I heard about the
trade. I know he's only 24 but he better be related to Clark Kent if
he's the main part of this deal. From what I've heard, he's only hitting
.240 with 8 HR's which is not exactly tearing it up. Can someone post a
little more info about this guy.
     And who are they going to get for the player to be named later? Ed
Sprague? Pat Borders? The rights to Jim Acker????  The last player to be
named later that the Mets got from the Jays was Jeff Musselman in the
Mookie deal, and we Met fans saw how that turned out.
     I know the Mets probably weren't going to sign Cone because they
wouldn't give him a five-year deal but they could have done better than
this. It's better than a draft pick but I would have opened up the
wallet again to keep this guy.
     There are two modes of reasoning for this deal that I can think of.
One is that the Mets are expecting Saberhagen and Gooden to come back
healthy. Then with Fernandez, Schourek, and maybe Hillman, the pitching
staff is set. Then with the money they could have used to sign David
Cone, they'll put in a little bit more and try to bring some excitement,
and attendance, back to Shea. Barry Bonds. Many fans may think that this
is crazy but anything is possible. With the Yankees climbing up in the
standings and attendance way down and the Braves possibly coming into
the division next year, the Mets might go all for broke again.
     The other, tamer, possibility is that the Mets figure that since
they can't sign Cone for only three years, maybe they can sign one of
the other free agent pitchers (i.e. Maddux,Swindell,Drabek). If this is
their idea, it's really stupid. There better off giving Cone the five
years. He's already established in New York and he's the ace of the
staff. You can't replace that.
     Cone was the only interest I had in the Mets for the rest of this
year. Now that he's gone, it's really boring. If the Mets expect to have
the fannies in the seats after Opening Day in early April, they better
have Mr. Bonds in the outfield. Maybe then, Hardball will be back and
not Snoozeball.

Craig
Mets fan stuck in Pirate Country
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: jhg8680@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Jon  Hamkins)
Subject: Re: Home Run Rule: Lind's Hit in Dodger-Pirate Game
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 21:27:46 GMT

cc007001@wvnvms.wvnet.edu writes:

>>hymowitz@whatever.cs.jhu.edu (Hymie!) writes:
>>> 
>>> /*
>>>  * a ball that bounces off the wall is no longer a fly but a bounding
>>>  * ball.  so, if it goes over the wall, it is a ground rule double.
>>>  */
>> 
>But then wouldn't a ball that hits the fence and bounces over the wall
>untouched also be a bounding ball and not a fly ball and thus a ground
>rule double?

   Yes, I believe so.  I haven't ever seen such a thing.  I think that
if a ball lands on TOP of the wall and then goes out, you could say
that it left the playing field in flight, and so would be a home run.
It's hard to imagine a ball hitting the side of the fence in flight and
then going over, though.

     ----Jon Hamkins  (hamkins@uiuc.edu)
         University of Illinios
         Urbana, IL
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: sckelm@iastate.edu (Steven C Kelm)
Subject: Re: Oakland and Texas... I scratch my head....
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 21:10:43 GMT

In article <180hccINNlj2@conquest.ksu.ksu.edu> jeffyg@conquest.ksu.ksu.edu (Jeffrey Wayne Geist) writes:
>
>Canseco:  Despite poor numbers and injuries, he is still going to demand 
>          big numbers for a salary next year.  I dont forsee him staying in
>          Texas past the end of the season.  Maybe so, but he seems more 
>          likely to play in New York or Los Angeles.  He may even go to an
>          expansion team, tho that is highly unlikely.
>

Canseco is already signed into a multiyear contract, so Texas doesn't
have to worry about his contract. 

>Sierra:   He will be great for the A's.  He has the attitude to play for them.
>          He will probably even resign with them.  After unloading Jose's
>          monster salary, they can afford Ruben.

If you think Canseco makes a lot of money, wait until Sierra inks a new 
contract.  I guarantee you that it will be more than Canseco's, plus 
with all of Oakland's free agents, I'm not sure where he is on the 
priority list.

>Russell:  The Rangers could not afford to get rid of him.  He was the one
>          consistency in their beleaguered bullpen. 

Russell is not consistent.  He actually leads the league in blown saves 
this year.  He may have been more consistent than the rest of the 
Ranger pen, but that's not saying much.

>
>Witt:     Texas was tired of waiting on him.  He has yet to prove he can win
>          consistantly at this level.  He will fit well with the A's staff,
>          who can make winners out of about everyone (probably with the 
>          exception of Mark Davis who was released by the Braves incidentaly)
>          He will probably be signed to a 2 or 3 year deal with the A's.

Witt is also in the middle of a multiyear deal, so he doesn't have to be 
resigned.  Unless Duncan can work wonders with him, I'd be surprised to 
see him in Oakland in the long term.  Granted, he is probably better 
Campbell who is starting now, but then again so is Kelly Downs, and
I wouldn't want either for more than a short time to fill an empty space.

Steven Kelm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
God, do I HATE David West!!!  Sorry just had to get it out of my system.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: hbrooks@uiatma.atmos.uiuc.edu (Harold_Brooks)
Subject: Re: The Monthly Cecil Fielder Thread
Organization: NSSL
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 18:10:11 GMT

In article <1992Sep02.161808.27587@brtph560.bnr.ca> psycho@brtpa25.bnr.ca (Paul Jezioranski) writes:
>Three anti-Fielders pummeling me at one time =8^) I'll respond to Ted,
>since he's the guy I've been dealing with most....

"Anti-Fielder" is perhaps not the right appellation.  "Anti-using RBIs without
regard to the context in which they were gotten as a method of evaluating 
players" would be better.

>
>In article <1992Sep2.135350.13730@midway.uchicago.edu>,
>thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>> In article <1992Sep02.131254.23869@brtph560.bnr.ca>
>psycho@brtpa25.bnr.ca (Paul Jezioranski) writes: 
>> >
>> >	1) You indicate each performers RBI vs. RISP, but there's no 
>> >	   quantification of the pitching quality. How do I know that the
>> >	   avg. ERA of the pitchers Fielder faced in these situations wasn't
>> >	   a half point lower than those Canseco faced.
>> 
>> How do we know it's not a half point higher?  
>
>	Exactly my point; we dont know, and it's pertinent info. We can't 
>	just "assume" the ERA difference is negligible like one fellow suggested
>	anymore than we can conclude that with 700 ML ball players, the 
>	difference between seventh best and best is negligible.

They're not at all the same question.  The first assumption is related to
whether, in a large sample, such as a full season, that two players on differ-
ent season will see statistically similar populations.  The second assumption
would be that near the end of the tail of a population the two "values" of
individual points are close to each other.  The first deals with large 
sample sizes, the second with very small samples.

>
>	Anyway, one other person 
>	mentioned that the Tigers did not lead the league in runs last year.
>	The Tigers currently lead the AL in runs scored, as they did in 1991
>	I'm not sure about 1990. Perhaps someone could post the numbers??

Detroit finished second each year

Runs scored (from Roger Mills's posted stats at the end of each year)

    1990             1991 
Toronto     767  Texas       829
DETROIT     750  DETROIT     817
Oakland     733  Milwaukee   799
Milwaukee   732  Minnesota   776
Cleveland   732  Oakland     760
Kansas City 707  Chicago     758
Boston      699  Boston      731
California  690  Kansas City 727
Chicago     682  Seattle     702
Texas       676  Baltimore   686
Baltimore   669  Toronto     684
Minnesota   666  New York    674
Seattle     640  California  653
New York    603  Cleveland   576

Harold
-- 
Harold Brooks                    hbrooks@uiatma.atmos.uiuc.edu
National Severe Storms Laboratory/CIMMS (Norman, OK)
Andres Galarraga (Through 1 September)  .239 BA  .374 SLG  .277 OBA
28 H from .300  5 H from .250  8 HBP  9 BB    
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Lies, Damn Lies, & Statistics (was Re: The Monthly Cecil Fielder Thread
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 01:57:08 GMT

In article <183q82INN5bi@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> sfh@po.CWRU.Edu (Steven F. Hubbard) writes:
>   Is there any value to a statistic like RBI/(# of opportunities)?  The number
>of opportunities would likely be weighted for runners at different bases.  It
>seems that this would eliminate the performances of the rest of the team and
>reflects what "the individual player does with his chances".  I assume that
>this has been discussed in this forum before and may enter into the dangerous,
>thoroughly disproven realm of "cluth hitting".

More that it's

(1) harder to calculate, and
(2) doesn't add much (and in fact subtracts something) from standard
    batting stats -- it's just those batting stats with a smaller sample
    and adding baserunner variability.

On the plus side, it would take into account the few batters that *are*
effective at the sacrifice fly (though the number of outs would have to
be accounted for then, at a further cost to sample size) and the difference
between dinky singles and strong ones that advance runners two bases, though
it's easy enough to identify the Brett Butlers of the world without such
a stat.

Hence, I don't like the stat -- it adds complexity and adds only questionable
value at a definite cost to accuracy if one accepts that clutch hitting is
just an artifact of the normal distribution.

(Oh, incidentally, to the Tiger fan who complained that we didn't take
into account Cecil's clutch play in 1991 -- in the late innings of close 
games that season, he was 23 for 99 with 3 HR: a .232 BA and .354 SLG, both
figures that were worse than Alfredo Griffin's the same season.  This
*raised* his career Late&Close BA to .212 and SLG to .323.  I don't count
this against him -- it's mostly a function of small sample size and that
relief pitchers make everyone's SLG drop by 33 points.) 
-- 
           .........................................................
          ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
         the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
         here i sit looking for a warming smile in a house of cold wit
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: jlundy@bilbo.encore.com (Joe Lundy)
Subject: Re: THE trade... A ranger fan's thoughts..
Organization: Encore Computer Corp.
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 14:47:33 GMT

In article <2AA61B08.1170@news.service.uci.edu>, jaykay@orion.oac.uci.edu (R. Jayakrishnan) writes:
|> 
|>   I admit that I was furious for the first 10 minutes after hearing of
|>   the deal on KMPC Los Angeles. The more I think about it, the more I
|>   like it. At least, I wont have to see the Rangers as dead last in the
|>   BB column year after year, from now on...
|> 
|>   That's my view, as a die-hard Rangers fan..

As a die hard Rangers fan, you've gotta be pleased with this one.
Canseco is a winner, and will give the Rangers much to look forward to.  The
players the A's get in return will help them this year.  That is, if they can
get over their completely demoralized attitude.

This will balance out the A's slightly if:

- They sign Sierra (a face saving move if anything - there are better names out
  there)

- Duncan works his magic with Bobby Witt.  I wouldn't put it past him to
  develop Bobby into a premier pitcher in this league and out of the Housian
  school of thought

- They get the first round pick for Russell.  Jeff Russell could turn out to be
  the Mark Davis of the '90's.

I was really surprised by this one.  The A's had the momentum and may have lost
it.  Canseco is a superstar, and his presence brought a certain air of
invincibility to that team.  I think the Rangers got a steal.  Sierra was going
to be lost, as was Russell.  Canseco is signed through '95.  That alone makes
the deal worth it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Joe Lundy           Encore Computer Corporation, 6901 W. Sunrise Blvd.    |
| jlundy@encore.com   Mail Stop 811, Ft. Lauderdale, FL  33313-4499         |
| "Make outs, not walks!" - Noel Steere					    |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: buchhosd@ucunix.san.uc.edu (Scott D Buchholz)
Subject: Re: Managing in the AL
Organization: University of Cincinnati
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 92 21:22:31 GMT

In article <1684E89E9.MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com> MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com writes:
>Remember the All-Star Game?  The NL was staging a comeback, and making
>the game exciting in the bottom of the ninth.  That comeback ended with
>Norm Charlton striking out feebly against the Eck.  Wasn't that a fun
>way to end the game?  The only pinch-hitter left was Lee Smith.
> 
>Jim McMaster

Remeber that this is the All-Star game, the managers do all they can to
get every player into the game.  You virtually never see a manager run
out of pinch-hitters in a regular season game (unless it's about the
13th inning).  I've always felt the All-Star game should be the only
time a DH is used - and even then we'd miss out on Cleveland's pitchers
getting hits!
-- 

                                         Scott Buchholz
                                         University of Cincinnati
                                         Computer Science
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: criteria for THE HALL
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 17:14:51 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.120817.1@gallua.gallaudet.edu> rlwilliams@gallua.gallaudet.edu writes:
>Hi,
>	I was thinking about what should qualify a person to be inducted 
>into Baseball's Hall of Fame. Here is what I came up with:

Quick question: should an inductee meet *all* of these criteria?
If so, set up a basic framework and compare it to the current Hall.
This is the best test of your approach.

>1. At some time during his career he should be generally thought of as the 
>best in the game at his positon. This forexample would eliminate somone 
>like Don Sutton who basically hung around a loooong time and yet assure 
>someone like the Wizard of Oz entrance.

Tough luck, then, if you played RF during Babe Ruth's career, or LF
while Musial and Williams were around.  No matter how good you were...

>2. He should put up some impressive career numbers: 300 wins, 400 - 500 
>hr, 3,000 hits etc or in the neighborhood.

How many such numbers?  Also, is Ozzie going to do this?  Everyone can
come up with one or two nice numbers; which ones should we pick?  And
should the numbers be the same for shortstops and catchers and first
basemen?  That doesn't sound right.

>3. He should not be compared against previous mistakes ("Well his numbers 
>are better than so and so's so he should be in the Hall, man.")

However, the opposite should be considered: "nobody else that good has
been left out."

>4. His personal life should not be an issue. Whether hack Wilson was an 
>alcoholic, Ty Cobb a racist, Rose a gambling fiend... It's what they do on 
>the field that counts. On the flip side of the coin, charisma doesn't 
>count.

And pigs might fly.  Charisma will count as long as there are baseball
fans and sportswriters, and especially as long as the latter do the 
voting.  

As to gambling--remember that the big issue around Rose is whether he
took his gambling activity to the field.  If he bet on his team -- let
alone, *against* it -- this IS an on-the-field issue.  Baseball did not
find that he did, but it's not as though there aren't suspicions.  They
should be treated as such, but the issue is not entirely unrelated to
the game as played.

Roger
From: rlwilliams@gallua.gallaudet.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: criteria for THE HALL
Date: 4 Sep 92 21:15:04 GMT
Article-I.D.: gallua.1992Sep4.161504.1
Organization: Gallaudet University

In article <92248.110546ENVIRON@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>, ENVIRON@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU writes:
> In article <1992Sep4.171451.11500@Princeton.EDU>, roger@crux.Princeton.EDU
> (Roger Lustig) says:
>>>2. He should put up some impressive career numbers: 300 wins, 400 - 500
>>>hr, 3,000 hits etc or in the neighborhood.
>>
>>How many such numbers?  Also, is Ozzie going to do this?  Everyone can
>>come up with one or two nice numbers; which ones should we pick?  And
>>should the numbers be the same for shortstops and catchers and first
>>basemen?  That doesn't sound right.
> 
>      Maybe as long as the career numbers considered aren't necessarily
> offensive stats it's semi-reasonable.  Ozzie's got about a dozen straight
> gold gloves, about a dozen straight All-Star starts, and just recently
> got his 2,000th hit (not bad for someone considered the best at his
> position for defensive reasons)...
> 
> Brett
====
Was thinking about Oz... I would definitely include defensive stats.. he 
must be right up there in terms of put outs, double plays, assists...

skip
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: claudius@leland.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu)
Subject: Re: CY, MVP, ROY
Keywords: eat more moose
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 22:50:43 GMT

In article <8#k-MW_@engin.umich.edu> martyp@engin.umich.edu (Martin Pochmara) writes:
>AMERICAN LEAGUE MVP....
>
>Fielder.....to make up for the last two years!
>still leading in RBI's
>up there in homers
>Not the same year as the last two, but dammit...he should be rewarded!

For what?  In '90 he was probably among the top 5, but last year he was no
better than being about 40th-50th best, if that.  And this year's downright
mediocre (for an MVP candidate, that is).

===============================================================================
GO CALIFORNIA ANGELS!
===============================================================================
Nelson Lu (claudius@leland.stanford.edu)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: fester@island.COM (Mike Fester)
Subject: Re: The Monthly Cecil Fielder Thread
Keywords: Responding To Posts like this makes me worry about the future of us  
Organization: /usr/local/rn/organization
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 18:04:23 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.164007.5432@panix.com> spira@panix.com (Greg "Sarcasm Is A Way Of Life" Spira) writes:

>They are?  Silly me - I thought they were paid to help their team win!  Now,
>once again, someone informs me that they're paid the club pays them to
>accumulate lots of RBIs, even if it costs the team wins!  Will I never learn!

Silly you is right. They are paid to increase revenue for the team. Winning
helps, but it's not, by any means, the only factor. Hence, an ineffective
Nolan Ryan still helps the team. Hence, an ineffective, aging superstar
(Mantle, Kaline, Yastrzemski, Mays, Jackson, etc) can still help the team. 

>Nonsense. There are a number of players who have been better at driving
>in runs over the past few years.  Leading the league in RBIs does not
>indicate that you are the best in driving in runs - it just means that
>you have driven in more runs than anyone else.

Nothing wrong with that.

>Well, its quite possible that Fielder would have won a MVP.  But baseball
>writers have a habit of translating MVP as "Player Who Came Up With
>The Most Runners On Base."  

Really? Hmm. In the AL 80's/early 90's, Canseco, Mattingly, and Bell won MVP
in the same year they led the league in RBI, and each of them had pretty 
decent years in other respects. Not much of a "habit". In the NL, Schmidt (3x),
Murphy (2x), Dawson, and Mitchell. Again some pretty decent years. Only a 
couple I'd question.

(BTW, if they DID award it on the basis of "Player Who Came Up With The Most 
Runners On Base", why didn't Sierra win it last year over Ripken? Bonilla in 
91 over Bonds? etc)

(BTWII, how many runners did Clemens have on base when he won the MVP? Fingers?
Hernandez?)

>At this
>point, he's about the 5th most valuable player on his team.  The Tigers
>would lose a lot less by replacing Fielder with an replacement level
>first baseman than they would by replacing Whitaker, Phillips, Tettleton,
>or Fryman with replacement level players at their position.  Run a lineup
>simulation, and the results won't even be close.

Probably if you run a simulation on the Tigers current lineup, you might find
that they don't score as many runs as the real team.

Mike
-- 
Disclaimer - I'm only doing what the little voices tell me to do.
From: mm42@prism.gatech.EDU (Mark Mitchell)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Braves 15 to protect
Date: 2 Sep 92 20:55:40 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Ramblin' Wrecks from Georgia Tech

genetic+@pitt.edu (Dr. Dave) wrote:
}
}The big rap about [Nieves] isn't on his stat sheet, it's on his birth
}certificate.  24 years old and still in AA, that makes him at least 25 and
}probably 26 before he gets any significant major league playing time.  He
}may be pretty good for a few years, but I wouldn't call him a major prospect.

Better check the birth certificate again - Nieves is only 20.  Maybe he's
not a major prospect at .283/.381/.531, but he's one of the best the Braves
have and will very probably be protected.  You may be thinking of David
Nied, who pitched last night and is 24 years old.

-- 
Mark Mitchell           Georgia Tech            mm42@prism.gatech.edu

     "I love codfish, I love codfish, I love codfish balls!"