HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rbd@flash.ece.uc.edu (Bobby Davis)
Subject: Pie Traynor
Organization: University of Cincinnati
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 18:05:39 GMT

Jason Abner Miller writes:
>	Back when he played, walks were not as highly valued as they are
>now - the object was simply to hit the ball and drive in runners (this
>being in the dead ball era, before the advent of Babe Ruth).

A couple of mistakes here.  First of all, walks have always been valuable.
Just because sportswriters did not realize that doesn't make it any less
true.  I'll agree with the technical wording of your statement that they
were not "highly valued," but I'd prefer to discuss Traynor's real value
rather than some sportswriter's perception of it.

Also, Traynor did not play in the dead-ball era.  His rookie year was
1922, the year after Babe Ruth hit 59 homers.  The NL averaged .292 as
a whole that year.  Traynor's last year as a full-time player was 1934.
During his career, the NL generally had a league batting average between
.280 and .300 and a slugging percentage in the neighborhood of .400.  These
are definitely not dead-ball era numbers.

>know what his career average was, but I know of his reputation for being
>a fine fielder - based on the hearsay of old-timers and sportswriters
>of the day - and it probably can't be verified in today's world.

I'll agree with you on his fielding.  In the big Mac, the most useful
stat for infielders listed (IMO) is TC/G.  Traynor was consistently at
the top of the NL in this stat.  He also did well in terms of double-play
involvement.  I'd say the numbers back the claims of the observers at the
time - Pie Traynor was probably the best fielding third baseman of his time.

>can't be determined if he was better than Brett or Schmidt, because
>he played in a different era and it's impossible to compare him to 
>today's greats.

Look at the years he was active and ask yourself questions like these:

(1) Was he ever the best player in the league?
(2) Was he generally one of the top dozen or so in the league?
(3) Was he the best player at his position?
(4) Was he the best player on his team?

The answers for Traynor are (1) Never, (2) Three or four times maybe,
(3) Generally at or near the top, (4) Almost never.  For Schmidt, the
answers are (1) Several times, (2) Virtually every year, (3) Virtually
every year, (4) Every year (apologies to Steve Carlton in his prime).

I don't think it is impossible to compare him to Schmidt because Schmidt
is so clearly superior.  Ditto for Brett.

Bob Davis	rbd@thor.ece.uc.edu
From: sgs@stein.u.washington.edu (Steven Smith)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Blue Jays-Gillick
Date: 16 Dec 92 21:48:36 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <1992Dec16.210013.10713@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca> maynard@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Roger Maynard) writes:
>
>Can you prove to me that in '92 the Jays would have won without Griffin?
>(or Gaston or any other member of the team).  No you can't and until you can
>prove it you cannot tell me that any member of the team was more important
>than any other if importance is defined as being necessary to winning the WS. 

What I'd like to know, Roger, is do you apply this same "reasoning" to
other aspects of your life?  Do you honestly believe that your cigarette
lighter was of equal importance to your drive train in getting you to
work today? And throwing the lighter out and driving home doesn't prove
anything about how the car worked this morning, as far as I can tell from
your rules. Wouldn't any discussion about whether your car would have run 
this morning without the lighter intact be nothing more than "idle 
speculation?" 

The car ran. The lighter was there. End of worthwhile discussion. Right,
Roger?

--Steve
-- 
 sgs@u.washington.edu             * "The tall people want what the 
 Steve Smith                      *  short people got."
 University of Washington HR-20   *    --D. Wiggin-"Philosophy of the World"	 
 Seattle, WA 98195                * 
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: Jerald.Thomas@launchpad.unc.edu (Jerald Thomas)
Subject: All Jewish team
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 20:25:56 GMT

Here are a few names to add to the list (sorry if they have already been
mentioned, but I haven't read all of the related posts):

Rod Carew
Steve Stone
Cal Abrams
Ken Holtzman





--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: rickert@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (John H. Rickert)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Brewer's all-time team.
Date: 11 Dec 1992 20:45:47 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department at Rose-Hulman
Distribution: world
Reply-To: rickert@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (John H. Rickert)
NNTP-Posting-Host: g215a-1.nextwork.rose-hulman.edu

In article <1g5fnkINNkpj@uwm.edu> paul@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Paul R Krueger)  
writes:
> LF--Ben Oglivie (sp?) Honorable mention to Johnny Briggs
> CF--Gorman Thomas
> RF--Sixto Lezcano/Darryl Hamilton
Or maybe Rob Deer- How about Dave May?
> 3B--Don Money
With backup Sal Bando
> SS--Robin Yount
> 2B--Paul Molitor (HM to Jim Gantner)
> 1B--Cecil Cooper (HM to George Scott)
> C---Charlie Moore (HM to Darrell Porter and BJ)
That's a  tough one. how about a BJ/Charlie platoon
(boyoboy I hope Nilsson turns out to be good)
DH: Ted Simmons/ Hank Aaron? - he held
the Brewer's single season DH HR record for a long time)
PH: Charlie Moore
PR: Tommy Harper(I think he played 3b for a while too), Mike Felder
> P---Teddy Higuera (HM to Mike Caldwell, Jim Colborn and Jim Slaton)
Well, I'd kind of like a whole rotation so I'll go with
Higuera, Caldwell, Slaton, Moose Haas, 
geez... a fifth could be anyone of Travers, Colburn, Bosio, Wegman, 
Vuvkovich, Sorenson, Marty Pattin, Don Sutton, Danny Darwin
> RP--Rollie Fingers (HM to Dan Plesac)
And Ken Sanders, Frank Linzy, Chuck Crim, Tom Murphy, Tom Tellman?
(I never was a Bill Castro fan)
manager: Buck Rodgers
hitting coach: Harvey Kuenn
Pitching coach: Eli Grba (well that's just my opinion...)
baserunning coach: Tom Trebelhorn
(I think the jury's still out on Garner)

Go Brewers!! 
Well... Molitor to Toronto, Bosio to Seattle, Plesac to Chicago, 
Fletcher to Boston....  That wasn't what I meant...

john rickert
rickert@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu
From: rickert@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (John H. Rickert)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: All-Time A's Team
Date: 19 Dec 1992 00:39:06 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department at Rose-Hulman
Distribution: na
Reply-To: rickert@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (John H. Rickert)
NNTP-Posting-Host: g215a-1.nextwork.rose-hulman.edu

In article <92Dec18.195128.21485@acs.ucalgary.ca>  
garbe@jasper.phys.ucalgary.ca (Greg Garbe) writes:
> In article <1992Dec16.165257.5844@cbnewse.cb.att.com>,  
zurawski@cbnewse.cb.att.com (lawrence.w.zurawski) writes:
> |> 	I haven't seen an All-Time A's team yet, so here goes:
[non-pitchers deleted]
> |> 	SP Grove
> |> 	SP Waddell
> |> 	SP Plank
> |> 	SP Hunter
> I am not an A's fan nor know much about the pre-Oakland players 
> but how can you leave  Dave Stewart off of this list.    
> I think Stewart is the most underrated pitcher of the past three decades.  
> Anyguy who can win 20+ games in four consecutive seasons
> would take my number four spot.

Hunter did that; 1971-3: 21 wins each year, 1974: 25 wins, 1975: 23 wins
Plank won 284 games for the A's in 14 seasons winning 20 or more in
   1902-5,1907, 1911,1912 winning 26 in two of those seasons.
Waddell won 20 or more games in 1902-05, with a hig of 27 in 1905.
Lefty Grove won 20 or more in 1927-33 with a high of 31 in 1931.
   He also won 20 for Boston in 1935.

There may be an argument for Stewart as one of 4 starters on this team, 
but I don't know what it is. It's definitely not the one you used.

seeing, hearing (my two sense worth)
john rickert
rickert@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Spehr
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 05:36:18 GMT

In article <42757@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> demers@cs.ucsd.edu (David DeMers) writes:
>In article <1020@blue.cis.pitt.edu> genetic+@pitt.edu (Dr. Dave) writes:
>> I couldn't believe it when I heard that they'd
>>acquired Tim Spehr somehow (how did that happen?).  
>
>what's Spehr's story? I've never heard of him...

Am I missing something?  I don't know where Spehr was in '92 (he didn't
seem to be playing at catcher anywhere in the majors), but isn't he 26
with MLE's of around 700?  
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
From: roper@chinet.chi.il.us (Bill Roper)
Subject: Re: Maddux a Brave (Was: Re: Bob Gaj's Hot Stove, and Other
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 06:54:53 GMT

Signings...)
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX
Keywords: Cubs, Maddux
 
 
In Saturday's Chicago Tribune, there was a story where Sandberg blasted
Maddux for using him and the other Cubs to leverage a higher paycheck
from another club as a free agent.  Boras' (Maddux's agent) said that
Atlanta had been his #1 choice all along.
 
"From the All-Star break on, he told me and teammates and everybody
that he wanted to play for the Cubs," Sandberg said.  "No doubt about
it.  And on numerous occasions he wanted me to go in and say something
to get things stirred up."
 
Sandberg talked to Himes four+ times last season to let him know that
Maddux wanted to stay in Chicago.
 
"I'd go up and talk to Larry and he'd say, 'Hey, that's great.'  He'd
contact Greg or his agent and get a completely different story, that he
wanted to go completely through free agency.  He was basically using me
and his teammates and fans.  He's been talking to coaches and saying
the same thing.  The manager ... he used everybody."
 
Sandberg said he had no problems with Dawson.  "He's a class act all
the way around."
 
But with Maddux, he's got a problem.  "Chicago is a first-class city
that supported him.  An organization that supported him.  We're the
team that helped him win the Cy Young -- and not once did he mention
his teammates and coaches.  He basically used the Yankees to get
Atlanta to go higher.  Then his agent goes on television and says the
reason he went to free agency was because his No. 1 choice was the
Atlanta Braves -- after he tells me for six or eight months that his
No. 1 choice was the Cubs."
 
Since the Cubs play Atlanta in their first series next year, they're
very likely to see Maddux.  "We'll try to beat him," Sandberg said.
"For sure."
 
(Article heavily paraphrased except for the direct quotes...)
-- 
Bill Roper, roper@chinet.chi.il.us
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: ward to atlant
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 05:19:35 GMT

In article <0096524A.430BC220@vms.csd.mu.edu> 2r73bryantm@vms.csd.mu.edu writes:
>ANY word on the D Ward to atlanta for mercker or wholers??
>

The Ward to Atlanta speculation was based mainly on the prospect of
the Jays losing Carter, and then the Jays would have needed Ron Gant.
The Jays then would have traded Ward and resigned Henke.

Carter signed with the Blue Jays, so Gant was not needed, so Ward
becomes the BJ stopper, and the Jays don't make an offer to Henke.

Gerald
Organization: Freshman, IM - Graphic Communications, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 00:39:01 -0500 
From: Josh S Linder <jl6p+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Is Yankees just a bargaining chip ?

A. Ricky to NY.  I--D-O-N-T--T-H-I-N-K--S-O.

B. There's still the possibility of the Morris to Yanks -=> Tartabull to
KC -=> Jefferies and Gordon to Toronto.

C. I'd go after Key if I were them.  Offer him a SHITLOAD of cash, plus
incentives, plus the key to NY, plus...  He's killed the Yanks on many
occasions (and so did Steib when he was healthy), so it would be a good
aquisition.  ALSO, a nice lefty, to join new lefty Jim Abbott.

D.  "Just wait until George gets his throne back."
From: lbr@holos0.uucp (Len Reed)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Stupidest rule in baseball (perhaps a new one)
Date: 15 Dec 92 21:48:43 GMT
Article-I.D.: holos0.1992Dec15.214843.26303
Organization: Holos Software, Inc.

In article <1992Dec13.092848.370@walter.cray.com> mb@cray.com (Maynard Brandt) writes:
>My apologies if this replicates an earlier post.  To me the dumbest rule
>has always been:
>
>With 0 or 1 strikes on a batter, a foul ball is a strike.  However, except
>for a bunt, a foul ball with 2 strikes on a batter is *NOT* a strike.
>
>If it isn't a strike the last time, why should a foul ball ever be included
>in the ball-strike count?

Your complaint is that that foul balls are not consistently strikes.
It's not clear to me why it is "dumb" that this rule is inconsistent.
I don't even think it's inconsistent, since the third strike results
in a strikeout and is therefore fundamentally different.  (Note that
a relief pitcher always is credited with the strikeout even if he
comes in with an 0-2 count: the theory is that the last strike is
the hardest to get.)

Anyway, this sure seems an odd choice for "dumbest rule in baseball."  At
the very least, it seems to me, a candidate for this crown should be
something that, if changed, wouldn't fundamentally recast the game.  Maybe
the infield fly rule, or fan interference, or running on a dropped third
strike.

Making a 2-strike foul a strikeout would give the pitcher a huge
advantage.  Batting averages would plummet.  Walks would go way down.
What do you think Boggs would hit if he couldn't foul off good
pitches waiting for a mistake?

Making all fouls neither strikes no balls would cause batting averages
and walks to soar.  Pitchers would last fewer innings because of this
and because they'd have to throw more pitches to get something to happen.
(Throw 3 foul balls and an outside pitch and you're behind 1-0!)  You
want to see the average game go to four hours?

You're proposing to change the essence of the game--the
balance between hitter and pitcher--in a way far more drastic than
messing with the strike zone or lowering the mound, all because of
some odd theory of consistency.

>I remember someone commenting on a TV broadcast that at one time foul
>balls weren't included in the ball-strike count.  Does anyone on the
>net know if this is true or false and, if it is true, when the rule
>changed?

Seems to me that was changed before the turn of the century.  At one
time they pitched underhanded, it took 8 balls to walk, and the batter
could request a low or high pitch.  Quite a different game.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: More on Bond's Antics.
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 00:43:02 GMT

In article <BzH4MC.5LL@ns1.nodak.edu> sivaram@plains.NoDak.edu (The Purple Bleeder ) writes:

>One of the MLB official who travelled to Loisville for the winter meetings, 
>was on the same flight as his Royal Highness, Mr Barry-Greedy-Bonds.

>According to the official, Bonds was loud and rude on the plane and 
>constantly complaining loud as to how the Yankees *insulted* him with 
>their 5 yr $36 Million offer he had turned down a few days earlier 
>(source S-I).

>Talk of insults...what about people struggling on the streets in this 
>country for getting a decent meal.. Mr Bonds should be knowing that.

Well, I suppose he should feel sorry for them.  But it isn't really
relevant.  What about Madonna?  She probably got as much as Bonds did
for 6 years just for pretending to play baseball in _A_League_of_Their_Own.

It's insulting for the Yankees to offer him less money than he's worth.

How does George Steinbrenner keeping 7 or 8 million dollars help
homeless people?

>Another baseball agent has this to say..."I hate to say this
>about a fellow agent, but I just rode on the same elevator with Bonds 
>and Gilbert. I think I'm going to puke. But I still have my wallet."

Gee, he wouldn't be feeling a little jealous, would he?

>Fellow Baseball fans....enough is enough. MLB can do without
>the likes of Mr. Bonds.  What if all the owners just told
>him to buzz off and refuse to pay him; he will be cut to Sixe.

Well, they would be charged either with collusion or terminal stupidity.
But since we already know they're guilty of the latter, and it hasn't
prevented them from signing free agents before, collusion would be the
most likely option.

*Why* would the owners do this if their goal is to win, (big if, I
suppose) since Bonds is able to help one of them do that more than
anyone else in the game?

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Is it too early to start making predictions for 1993?
niepornt@phoenix.    | Probably, but that never stopped me before.
   princeton.edu     | ALE: Baltimore ALW: Chicago NLE: Montreal NLW: Atlanta
Baltimore Orioles 93 | AL MVP: Cal Ripken  AL Cy Young: Mike Mussina
Date: Tuesday, 15 Dec 1992 18:31:08 EST
From: <RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Trivia Question
Distribution: usa
 <1992Dec15.202049.25693@math.toronto.edu>

from "the straight dope" by cecil adams (go out and buy two or three copies.
a mint book):
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
     during a slow moment in our regulation of gene expression class
at school the other day, the prof posed the following question: "what
are the five ways of reaching first base without hitting the ball?"
most of us being graduate students, we had no problem coming up with
four - a walk, hit by pitch, dropped third strike, and catcher's
interference - but the fifth, if it indeed exists, remains an unknown.
can you enlighten us? -geofferey s., for bio science 447, chicago
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
     the straight dope, always willing to go that extra mile, not
only gives you number five, but throws in number six too, at absolutely
no extra charge.

     according to official rule 7.05 (h), the batter and base runners
get one base "if a ball, pitched to the batter, or thrown by the pitcher
from his position on the pitcher's plate to a base to catch a runner,
goes into a stand or a bench, or over or through a field fence or
backstop."

     alternatively, according to 7.05 (i), "on a ball four or strike
three, when the pitch passes the catcher and lodges in the umpire's
mask or paraphernalia," the batter and runners are entitled to advance
one base.  that is, if they can stop laughing long enough.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

so there are the eight you asked for - these six, plus "hit" and "error".

bob vesterman.

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball

>Starters - Brantly, Black, Burkett, Wilson, ?
----------

I know this is the way things are now, but how long do you honestly
expect Brantly to be in the rotation?

1.  How often to relievers get converted into starters?
2.  How often do they succeed?

Craig Lefferts?  Others?

Sounds bleak for the Giants rotation.  (Which is good news for Paul Andresen :-)

Lynch "MOB"
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball,soc.women,soc.men
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Women Sports Reporters
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 16:53:37 GMT

In article <27285@sybase.sybase.com> jeffl@houdini.sybase.com (Jeff Lichtman) writes:

)In my opinion, this business of women reporters in the locker rooms is a
)red herring, similar to the argument against the ERA that it would lead to
)unisex bathrooms (like the one in my house?).  If you start with the idea
)that sex discrimination is wrong, that women reporters should have equal
)access, then it is simply a matter of making this possible.  If athletes
)object to reporters of the "opposite" sex in their locker rooms, then
)set up a separate room for interviews, and do not let any interviews at
)all take place in the locker rooms.
)
)I don't really think such measures are necessary.  Haven't we all seen TV
)interviews done in locker rooms?  If ballplayers are willing to put up with
)TV cameras in their locker rooms, why not female reporters?

As I recall, at least one team owner tried to get all the reporters (no
gender distinctions) out of the locker room and into an interview area.  He
was more or less 'jumped on' by the commission (not sure whether this was
baseball or football) who argued that it was required that interviews take
place in the locker room, and that an interview area was not an acceptable
substitute.

I thought that having interviews in an interview area (for everyone) was a
perfectly reasonable thing to do, and I still do.

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: tedward@cs.cornell.edu (Edward [Ted] Fischer)
Subject: Re: joe carter and others
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853
Distribution: rec
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 02:51:49 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.4235.52095@dosgate> "michael berger" <michael.berger@canrem.com> writes:
>
>Anyone
>who believes this is missing a key truth about teams and all
>organizations.  Their performance is rarely equal to the sum of their
>component parts.  The concept of team chemistry has been the difference
>between the Blue Jay teams of 1992 vs <1991.

Oh?  In my opinion, the main differences have been:
1) Addition of Juan Guzman, a True Staff Ace.
2) Addition of Roberto Alomar, a *real* star in the middle infield.
3) Winfield providing a ton of production in 1992.

>Nine Hendersons would not
>score all those runs because the whole clubhouse would be at eachothers'
>throats, chiefly because only one of them could bat leadoff.

Maybe, maybe not.  The A's have had their clubhouse problems at times,
but they have scored a *ton* of runs in a pitchers park, and have won
the division four times while trotting out mediocre starting pitchers
like Mike Moore, Storm Davis (I think those two are twins), Bob Welch
(who did have one or two good years), Ron Darling, Kelly Downs, etc...
And between Henderson and Canseco, I think their Asshole Factor is
(was) quite high.

>While I may be exaggerating, my central point is that some players like
>Joe Carter contribute with more than just run production.  What is Devon
>White's value to the pitching staff's confidence beyond the number of
>errors he makes.  And those statistics about range appear dubious
>considering Roberto Alomar seems to rank at the bottom for second
>basemen.

Depends on *which* range statistics you look at.  Some are *very*
iffy.  I believe the more reliable ones show that Alomar is one of the
better defensive 2Bs, though maybe not the best in the league...

White would be an excellent defensive outfielder even if he made 20
errors a year (which is essentially impossible for an outfielder,
unless he frequently forgets his glove in the dugout).  White has
blazing speed, and gets an excellent jump on the ball.

Does Carter contribute more than run production?  Maybe.  But wasn't
he traded from San Diego *because* he was a "bad clubhouse presence"
or something?  Seems to me that the Jays have more talent than they
used to.  Carter is getting a lot of the credit for the production of
Alomar, Olerud, and Winfield, but does he deserve that much???

>If you really believe the Jays should not have resigned Carter, name
>their alternative for replacing his production on the team.  Sierra was
>the only run-producing outfielder left and his attitude rivals
>Henderson's.

Sierra will produce far more over the next four years than Carter,
IMHO.  Attitude or no attitude.  And actually, I thought he had a
pretty good attitude...

In any case, the Jays need pitching more than offense.  They could
have kept Maldonado *cheap* and spent the money to keep Cone.  They
wouldn't have needed to buy a 36 year old starter then.

-Valentine
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball