HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Hall of Fame voting (read - Disgusted)
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 07:48:36 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.071811.3625@athena.mit.edu> frisch1@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan Katz) writes:
>Niekro a definite Hall of Famer?  I think not.
>1) He was _never_ a dominant player in any year. I don't refer specifically to
>his stats, either.  Let's just say that there was never a time when teams were
>'afraid' to face him, like teams nowaday are 'afraid' of Clemens and the way
>teams used to feel about Gooden (Ah, those were the days...)

I disagree.  In the late sixties/early seventies, he was a dominant
pitcher.  It's easy to forget that considering that he was in his forties
for about half the time I was watching baseball.

>2) Just check out the number of losses he had.And don't give me that 'bad team'
>crap.  Ryan and Carlton had the same problem, 
>and managed to overcome it at least somewhat.

Did they?  Just check out the number of losses Ryan had.  287 at last count,
and eight losing seasons.  Carlton's unquestionably a better pitcher than
Niekro, but he also had a lot of losing seasons, and, for that matter, didn't
pitch on as many losing teams as you might think -- the Phillies were 
pretty damn good for the last half of the 70's and well into the 80's,
even if they kept losing to the Dodgers and the Reds in the playoffs. 

>3) Check out his lifetime ERA.  It's nothing to get excited about, though it is
>certainly above average.

He was pitching in Atlanta, one of the two or three best hitters' parks in 
the majors.

>Anyway, Niekro may well belong in the Hall.  However, to say he is a 
>definite HOF seems misguided.  

Let's put it this way -- can you name a single pitcher as good as Niekro
who *isn't* in the Hall?

>To say that he deserves it more than Reggie is just plain stupid!

Perhaps.  Certainly indefensible, at any rate.

(Please watch your line lengths in the future.)
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
never shout movie in a crowded firestation
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Defensive Position and Hitting
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 08:56:04 GMT

I got the Stats 1993 Player Profiles, and they had a great breakdown
of batting by position for players.  I couldn't help but notice a trend.

As an outfielder, Bip Roberts hit well over .350 with lotsa power.
As an infielder, his OPS was in the 600-650 range.

John Kruk was over 150 OPS better at 1B than in RF.

Canseco DH: 942 OPS.  RF: 759 OPS.

Travis Fryman was a sensational 891 OPS 3B, but just an OK 703 OPS as a SS.

Cory Snyder 1B > OF > 3B.  Tim Wallach 1B > 3B.  Jerry Browne 3B > OF > 2B.
Mariano Duncan 2B > SS > OF.  Fletcher SS > 2B.  Gaetti DH > 1B = 3B.
Gladden LF > CF.  Rene Gonzales 1B/3B > 2B.  Juan Gonzalez was slightly
better as a LF than as a CF.  Darryl Hamilton RF > LF/CF.  Len Harris,
2B > 3B/SS.  Jeff Kent 3B > 2B.  Jeff King 2B > 3B > 1B.  But HoJo and 
Roberto Kelly CF > LF.  

Sorrento was 100 OPS better as a DH than as a 1B.  Stankiewicz was 150+
OPS better as 2B than as SS.  Tettleton was 165 OPS better as a DH than
as a C.

But Boggs was about the same at DH and 3B, and Brett was better as 1B than DH.
O'Brien was also about the same at DH and 1B.  Carter was much better as OF
than as DH.  Fielder was better at 1B than DH.  Tartabull was much better
as RF than DH.  Phillips was better as a position player than a DH.  Jack
Clark was Superman at 1B (974 OPS in 50 PA) but Wallachesque as a DH (<600
OPS).

Cooper about the same as 1B and 3B.  Brunansky was better as DH > RF > 1B.

--
Possible hypotheses for all this.

1.  Random chance.  We're talking a lot of small sample sizes here.

2.  Players playing in unfamiliar positions hit poorer than they would
    otherwise.

3.  Players playing in more difficult positions have more of their
    attention drawn towards the more demanding defensive position, and
    may be less able to hit.

4.  DH's may not be in the flow of the game, and have trouble staying
    warmed up to hit, as they spend much of the game on the bench.

5.  Players playing DH may be doing so in coming back from an injury,
    and hit less well because of the injury rather than the position.

6.  The position switch may just coincide with a platoon advantage --
    a batter might be platooned at 3B against RHP, but 2B against LHP.

Any studies ever been done on this sort of thing?  #3 has interesting
implications in terms of deciding where to play a Bip Roberts or HoJo or
Fryman, if it is the case.  I only have a year's worth of data, and a
lot of these are abysmal samples.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: cosper@seq.uncwil.edu (Kit Cosper)
Subject: Re: Get a life baseball fans... Try ping-pong!
Organization: Univ. of North Carolina @ Wilmington
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 02:18:51 GMT

demers@cs.ucsd.edu (David DeMers) writes:

>In article <9301082157.AA27017@pserv.CFSMO.Honeywell.COM> khanh@cfsmo.honeywell.com (Khanh Nguyen) writes:
>[...]

>Hmm.  Terminal left unattended?

	More likely brain left unattended.


	Guess ping pong players are hard up for excitement....




-- 
   Kit Cosper                        cosper@seq.uncwil.edu         
   PP-ASEL-IA                        AMA 31022
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Cecil signs :-( :-( :-(
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 01:42:21 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.002323.3803@ncsu.edu> Perry@mte.ncsu.edu (Bill Perry) writes:
>Please remember that when a team like Detroit signs Cecil to the big contract
>that they are also paying him back for past years of service.  

That's fair.  He was probably underpaid for much of that three years.
I think Cecil comes out far ahead in the deal though.  He'll put up
about five Dave Kingman-like seasons for Barry Bonds money.  It just
about guarantees the Tigers won't afford being able to contend until
1997 or so.

>The fact is he has been the biggest bat in baseball
>the past 3 years. 

Cecil might be the biggest something in baseball, but it isn't "bat,"
that is, if you define "bat" as that which contributes to run-scoring.
Frank Thomas has been the biggest bat in baseball the past three years.
Fielder has had one great season, one a-bit-above-average season, and
one average season in the last three years.  Last year, he wasn't
even a bigger bat than Mickey Tettleton, and he was just about as big a
bat as Tony Phillips--both of whom play much more critical defensive
positions. 

>He can't pick his teammates or pitch, so don't put his
>accomplishments down just because the Tigers have stunk over that time period. 

We won't, as long as you don't put his accomplishments up because
he had Tony Phillips and Lou Whitaker hitting ahead of him over that
time period allowing him to put all those RBI's on the scoreboard.
No, we're judging Fielder for what he is.  A first baseman-to-soon-be-DH
who swallowed up 470 outs last year for the Tigers.

>He has many good years ahead of him, and he will win the MVP one year......

His good years are behind him, not ahead of him.  He might have
another 1991-type season, but he won't have another 1990.  For
that matter, 1992 might very well be the peak of his 1992-1997.
I'd say the prediction of .230/25 HR/80 RBI for 1997 that was
posted earlier is about accurate.

Fielder is not going to win the MVP, and has never deserved one.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
never shout movie in a crowded firestation
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Cecil signs :-( :-( :-(
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 05:07:24 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.164050.27334@athena.mit.edu> frisch1@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan Katz) writes:
>I don't understand you guys.  Fielder is one of the five best first basemen in
>the league right now.  

That's disputable.  I can certainly think of five I'd definitely rather
have (Thomas, McGwire, Olerud, Palmeiro, and Sorrento) and Mo Vaughn,
Kent Hrbek and Wally Joyner all have good shots of having a better 1993
than Fielder.  

>His avergae last year was an aberration.  

His career batting average is about .260.  He hit .244 last year.  That's
not much of an aberration.  Especially when you're as old and out-of-shape
as Fielder is.  He'll be lucky to manage .250 this year, and he'll be a
.230 hitter by the end of his contract.

Now, 1990, *that* was an aberration.  He hasn't had a season like that
before or since.

>And besides, his
>average wasnt _that bad_ considering how many homeruns he hit.  

Well, McGwire hit a bunch of home runs also.  Thomas only had 24 HR, 
eleven fewer than Cecil but he had 24 more doubles and two more triples 
and 25 or so more singles and 49 more walks and made 49 fewer outs.  While
being more durable.  Then you have Sorrento, Palmeiro, and Olerud, all
of whom are younger than Fielder, in better shape, and much better at
getting on base and fielding the position.

No, what was bad was his on-base average.  His slugging was above average,
but it barely made up for all of the outs he ate.

>He's been an
>all-star the past three years, too (a starter a couple of times also, if I am
>correct).  That clearly makes him beter than 'marginally above average'.

No, that makes him popular.  A big difference -- Mike Schmidt made the
all-star team after he retired.  (And Fielder is no Mike Schmidt.)

>Besides, and this will probably get a lot of flaming, I think that had he not
>missed time in Japan, he would now be on the way to a HOF career.

Chyeah, right.  Had he not gone to Japan, he'd be John Olerud's backup
right now.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
never shout movie in a crowded firestation
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Cecil signs :-( :-( :-(
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 19:31:27 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.182153.25244@cbnewse.cb.att.com> gotribe@cbnewse.cb.att.com (richard.g.barry) writes:
>You guys get so bogged down in your stats and comparisons, that you
>forget what the Detroit owner really wants to do - get people to
>the park and make money.  Fielder is as big (no pun intended) in
>Detroit as other superstars are in other towns.  When the town loses
>the superstars, they tend not to support the team until they either
>get a new superstar or start winning.  In Chicago, the guys on
>the radio are already advocating not going to Bears pre-season games
>next year because McCaskey fired Ditka (Chicagos' newest superstar
>hero).  Detroit needs Fielder and $$$ shouldn't be an issue.

Will Detroit need Fielder if he doesn't win the RBI title?  Will Detroit
care wbout Fielder when his skills fall apart a little more?  That's 
*five years* we're talking about here.  

How many players in baseball history have been a draw for that long?  How
good were they?  The stats are *entirely* relevant, because they point
to the player's long-term prospects for helping the team.  As soon as
Fielder's downside becomes more visible, the fans will begrudge him
every dollar dollar of Little Caesar's money.

Roger

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: king@ssvax.gte.com (Larry King)
Subject: Re: Jeff Russell????
Organization: GTE/SCSD
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 16:03:26 GMT

Edward [Ted] Fischer (tedward@cs.cornell.edu) wrote:
: In article <1993Jan7.140421.19289@europa.asd.contel.com> king@ssvax.gte.com (Larry King) writes:
: >
: >Russell was suppose to be coming to Boston this week for a physical
: >evaluation.  The Red Sox are definitely interested in him.  If not him
: >it will be Bullpen by Committee next year and that could be really
: >interesting for this team.
: 
: There are worse things than bullpen by committee...  Melendez, Harris,
: Bankhead, and Quantrill all are capable relievers.  And Ryan is being
: touted as the closer of the future (is the future now?).
: 
: But who is going to *start* the games???  Clemens and Viola will each
: start 30.  But can anybody else handle the job?  Who will the other
: three starters be?  I'm betting on Darwin, Dopson, and Taylor starting
: the season in the rotation.  But do any of them have the arm to last?
: 
: -Valentine

I agree that the Red Sox have some very capable relievers, each one
capable of coming in and pitching a scoreless inning.  Harris can be
very difficult for one inning with the curve ball he has.  Imagine
facing Clemens for 8 innings of heat and then getting a curve ball that
starts at your temple and crosses just below your knees.  I have seen
Melendez's numbers from last year and what he is touted to be but I will
have to wait for judgement.  Ryan could be the closer of the future but
I believe the team still wants another year of flavoring before he goes
in there full time.  

As far as starters go it is a tough call.  Clemens and Viola are obvious
with Dopson and Darwin probably being 2 of the others.  After that you
have Matt Young (If at all I would rather have him as middle relief)
or Taylor.  Seles and Rodriguez are still at least a year away.  There
is Minchez (sp) that we acquired from the Reardon trade but I don't know
if he is primarily a reliever or if he has starting potential.  Out of
all these people, Darwin is the only one I see who could give 30+ games.
Dopson probably is still not there and Taylor is relatively unknown
under constant game conditions.  I wish the RedSox had invested in
another starter before the season.  Scott Sanderson, is
he still available?  He at least gives innings and can be effective.

I look at some of the starters signed by other clubs and wonder why we
couldn't have picked up one of them.  Bosio, Abbott, Stewart, Moore, and
Key are some of the good starters that moved around.  Granted the Red
Sox have a money problem but a starter could be used.  We will have to
wait to see how things pan out but I think it could be a long year.  

--
Larry King
GTE Government Systems, Needham, MA    		(617) 455-3384 
E-Mail : king@ssvax.gte.com
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: cubsfan@camelot.bradley.edu (Michael Silverman)
Subject: Re: Which baseball publication is the best one to subscribe to?
Organization: Priests of the Temples of Syrinx
Date:  6 Jan 93 22:18:32 GMT

The best solution (if you have the $$$):
Subscribe to both Basebal Weekly and Baseball America...you get all
the stats and news in BBW, and more in depth articles and minor league/
college stuff in BBA.


--
cubsfan@camelot.bradley.edu

"One likes to believe in the freedom of baseball" - Geddy Lee
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: dtokarew@tokafew.Doc.Provo.Novell.COM (Deb Tokarewich)
Subject: Re: The Best First-base Player in !993
Organization: Novell, Inc.
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 23:28:08 GMT

> In article <C0M6pC.IIp@news.iastate.edu> vbdiep@iastate.edu (Vinh Diep)  
writes:
>
> While many of you are arguing about Will Clark and Frank Thomas, and 
> one is better than the other, one player that some of you seem to ignore 
> will surprise baseball fans in 1993. That All-Star first-baseman is DON
> MATTINGLY.

> Any questions?

Just one: Ever hear of Mark Grace?
From: jwhite@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Joseph White)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: SMOKING BANS at ballparks?
Date: 12 Jan 93 22:43:58 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Annapolis Detachment, CARDEROCKDIV, NSWC  Code 2723 
	      (formerly David Taylor Research Center, Annapolis MD)

In article <wall-120193170746@elvis.swarthmore.edu> wall@cc.swarthmore.edu (Matthew Wall) writes:

>Cheers for the Orioles. I don't care if it's "open air", smokers, the smoke

Even if OP@CY is "open air", that is really a non-argument against the
ban.  Ever been in Baltimore from approx. July to September??  Unless
there is a thunderstorm fast approaching, the "open air" is usually
very still and stagnant.  Combined with the high humidity, that makes
you sweat, while at rest, the smoke  isn't going anywhere fast.

Joe White
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball,soc.women,soc.men
From: tedward@cs.cornell.edu (Edward [Ted] Fischer)
Subject: Re: Expos Clinch! Wallach to Dodgers
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 15:06:18 GMT

In article <1993Jan3.213340.1957@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca> maynard@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Roger Maynard) writes:
>
>>Have you forgotten the cut for the bookie?  It's rather significant...
>
>The bookie's cut has nothing to do with the posted odds.  You look at the
>odds and you go one way or the other.  The bookies cut is irrelevant.

Bullshit.

>You aren't betting against the skew.  You pick the odds - one way or the 
>other.
>
>How big is the skew anyway, Valentine?  You don't know do you?

Well, I don't gamble, but they were explained to me once...  The
betting lines look like 6-6 or 6.5-5.5 or something like that.  If a
team is favored 6.5-5.5, then you need to bet $6.50 on the favored
team to win $5, and $5.50 on the underdog to win $5.

Suppose my statistics tell me that in this situation the favored team
will win 55% of the time.  That's certainly interesting predictive
information.  Suppose also (for the sake of argument) that I am right.
Now I try to go out and make money off of it...  Twenty times, I bet
my $6.50.  I lose $58.50 and win $55.  Not much of a profit, eh?

The statistics tell us that baseball is an unpredictable game (you
*have* seen the stathead postings on the post-season, right?).  The
statistics rarely favor a team by more than 55-45 odds.  And the
betting lines are such that you can't make much money on odds like
that.

Now if I were given odds that good when betting on the *season*
results, I could do better.  But I'm not.  The skew on those bets is
even greater.

>Much of what you say - such as this post - can't be understood because it
>is sheer nonsense.  If your methods are superior prove it.  Make some dough.
>And if you don't understand the simple mechanics of betting for or against
>a line then keep your noise to yourself....

Is what I wrote above in error?  Or are you simply continuing to post
on topics where you know nothing?  Give me a fair game and I will beat
it.  I promise.  You choose the odds, and I choose the side.  (Though
I will do better if I'm allowed to pass on most of the games and only
bet on those where I think the odds don't reflect reality.)

-Valentine
Date: Sunday, 10 Jan 1993 11:33:35 EST
From: <RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: The Monthly Mattingly Flame War
Distribution: usa
 <1993Jan10.015942.29092@midway.uchicago.edu>

ted frank says something like, "my other question is why mattingly
fans are the most self-delusional people on the face of the earth."

apparently ted has not met many (football) giants fans.

bob vesterman.

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: dae@cbnews.cb.att.com (david.a.elliott)
Subject: Re: Pecota
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 14:18:17 GMT

In article <bone.726355063@luciano.Stanford.EDU> bone@luciano.Stanford.EDU (Douglas J. Bone) writes:
>In <8364@news.duke.edu> fierkelab@bchm.biochem.duke.edu writes:
>>part-time player next year.  The Braves, like the Expos, are (I hope) too smart
>>an organization to stay with aging players as starters just because of past
>>heroics.  (See all those posts about the Wallach Deal)  Now, can someone tell
>>me why we signed Bill Pecota?
>
>The PEcota signing bothered me.  Once Treadway was let go, I assumed the
>infield would be 3B-Pendleton, SS-Blauser, 2B-Lemke, IF-Belliard with the
>other reserve spot going to Chipper Jones or perhaps Ramon Caraballo.  I
>suspect that the Pecota signing was predicated upon the belief that neither
>Jones nor Caraballo will be ready for the majors next year, or that they
>wouldn't be suited for a reserve role...
>...I guess they figured a veteran reserve was needed.
>
>Schuerhouz(sp?) has been accused of being enamored of 30 year old veterans.

I've made that claim several times here.  When Bill James made a comment to
that effect a few years back in one of his books, I looked back at his track
record.  Sure enough, he had consistently traded young talent for veterans
(of sometimes dubious quality), or signed aging free agents.  In KC, the
acquisition of a young Tartabull was probably the only time he went after an
under-30 player of star caliber.

In Atlanta, we've seen Pendleton, Bream, Belliard, Nixon, Reardon, Pena, and
now Pecota.  He certainly has been luckier in Atlanta, but beware Braves
fans.  The next generation of (washed up) Vida Blues, Richard Dotsons, Floyd
Bannisters, Steve Renkos, and Ed Hearns will be parading through Atlanta
before long.

As for Pecota, his greatest value is that he is a competent defensive player
at all 4 infield positions, and can even play the outfield in a pinch.  As
the Braves don't seem to have a glaring need for a jack-of-all-trades
player, the only reason for the signing I can see is the "Schuerholz
Syndrome" (tm).


Dave Elliott
From: rander@cco.caltech.edu (Roger F. Anderson)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Cards. Are there collectors outthere?
Date: 6 Jan 1993 23:30:39 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu
Summary: I am looking for cards collectors. Not too picky.
Keywords: cards

I don't believe there is a seperate group for this and I don't know
if there is sufficient interest for one. I have from various years between 
1965 - 93 about 20,000 or more Baseball cards which I would like to trade
but in as much as they are not in perfect shape and given the market these
days dealers are not willing to try them. I was wondering if anyone out there
was looking to trade. I would like to finish out some of the years I have alot
of, particularly 72, 77,80,84,85,86,90,91,92.

Just checkin'
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: steph@pegasus.cs.uiuc.edu (Dale Stephenson)
Subject: Re: Deion Sanders to give up football?
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 22:07:30 GMT

In <1993Jan11.182110.12686@ncsu.edu> hmn@boggs.cc.ncsu.edu (Harry Nicholos) writes:

[...]

>Gant did have a un-Gant-like season, but I think hanging on to him is probably
>more important that hanging on to a so-called slugger like Dave Justice, that is
>if you feel like you have to make a deal.  When Gant is playing his game, he 
>is a more potent offensive threat than Justice (not to mention defensive skills).

I'm not in favor of dumping Gant (if they were going to do it, they should have
done it after the '91 season).  But Gant's only offensive advantage over
Justice is that he's more durable.

         Justice          Gant
1990   282/373/535     303/357/539
1991   275/377/503     251/338/496
1992   256/359/446     259/321/415

Gant is one year older.  Gant steals at a 69% clip (career), which doesn't make
up for an average of 30 points of OBP.

Justice has a bad reputation defensively, but I'm not sure it's deserved.  Gant
also has a bad reputation defensively -- he's improved a lot, but he still
doesn't get a very good jump on the ball.

Gant may be a nicer guy, but I'd far rather get rid of Gant than Justice.
-- 
Dale J. Stephenson |*| (steph@cs.uiuc.edu) |*| Baseball fanatic

  "It is considered good to look wise, especially when not 
   overburdened with information" -- J. Golden Kimball