HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: peppler@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Randy Peppler)
Subject: Three Hose Tidbits
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 14:25:11 GMT

	I was naive enough to consider that George Bell in some way
	had a positive season for the White Sox.  I was set straight,
	of course, by several of you.  However, at least I wasn't dumb
	enough to think that Frank Thomas should be more "like George"
	at the plate.  That's what Bill Gleason of the South Bend
	Tribune, and the TV version of "The Sportswriters", thinks.  He
	says that Frank walks too much and should swing at more pitches,
	like George.  I thought some of you might want to chuckle this
	morning, or gag on your coffee...

	In case any of you missed it, the Abbott and Costello of relievers,
	Bobby Thigpen and Scott Radinsky, with a little help at the end
	from Terry Leach, punted Jack McDowell's apparent 4-1 win at
	Minnesota last night clean through the baggie during another
	forgettable ninth inning.  Radinsky gave up a game-tying double
	to someone who never had a major league hit (forgot his name), on
	the first pitch he threw him, with two outs.  This series of
	misfortunes cost the Sox a tie with Minnesota and McDowell his
	21st win, a really nice performance...

	I'd echo Ted Frank's thoughts on the effectiveness of McDowell
	(very) versus McCaskill (not) when runners are on base.  Jack
	bears down, while Kirk slows down terribly and apparently loses
	concentration...

-- 
-------------------------------
| Randy Peppler               |
| Illinois State Water Survey |
| peppler@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu    |
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: tedward@cs.cornell.edu (Edward [Ted] Fischer)
Subject: Re: Lead off walks....
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 19:40:23 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.130542.1330@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> z_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
>In article <1992Oct2.020734.18582@Princeton.EDU>, roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
>> 
>> No, Brandon, that is *not* what you were arguing.  You were arguing that
>> p(hit|leadoff walk) is different from p(hit|leadoff hit) because of the
>> "two hits less likely than one" interpretation of the gambler's fallacy.
>> Read your own words above.  
>
>	Yes, I did say this, but I was looking at it from the *start* of the
>inning, not *after* the first batter reached base. This ain't the gambler's
>fallacy (though it is largely irrelevant). From the start of an inning, there
>is a slightly better chance of a team scoring if the first runner reaches
>via walk than hit, since in most cases they will only get 1 hit/inning.

Don't bother with him, Roger.  He not only doesn't know enough
mathematics to figure out the right answer on his own, he doesn't know
enough mathematics to realize that he is wrong when the correct answer
is handed to him on a silver platter.  The scary thing is that he
*still* probably understands probability theory better than your
average ballplayer/manager/GM/announce/baseball fan.

>Excuse me for arguing philosophically rather than with statistical
>analysis, which you silly stat heads thrive on.

Sorry, Brandon.  Your argument isn't a "philosophical" one either.
It's simply wrong.  It isn't even irrelevant.  And your insistence on
it looks *really* stupid to anybody who actually understands
probability theory.  (Which doesn't necessarily mean that you won't be
able to find people to agree with you.)

>What does irk me is that you and the other stat
>heads are so damned rude to anyone who doesn't fall down and kiss your feet.

Aw!  I think I hurt his feelings.  Shame on me.  (Did anybody see me
demanding that he kiss my feet?  Frankly, I'd rather keep uneducated
idiots like him as far away from me as possible.)

Brandon states that 2 + 2 = 5.  I tell him (by e-mail, I think) that
he's wrong.  He tells me "It's not your newsgroup, I can argue that 2
+ 2 = 5 if I want to."

And I wasn't even rude, the first time.

<sigh>
-Valentine
-- 
Make outs, not walks!					tedward@cs.cornell.edu
Clemens four Cy Young!
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: claudius@leland.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu)
Subject: Re: Sheffield is NL MVP
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 92 21:15:53 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.151212.2535@island.COM> fester@island.COM (Mike Fester) writes:

>It might be pointed out that Detroit's lineup is not exactly ideal. The 
>numbers 3 and 4 hitters have relatively low OBPs (in fact, Detroit's #3 slot
>has the #11 overall OPS production in the league), yet they still have the 
>best offense. And no, the OPS of the leadoff slot is not that high; about 4th
>or 5th in the league. #2 and #5 are very high, both actually and in comparison
>to the league. How smart does THAT look?

Well, for #1 and #2, you are supposed to have high *OBPs* and not necessarily
high *OPS'*.  (If you put a big slugger #1, you are making a big mistake.)
And no one can argue with Tony Phillips' .391 OBP and Lou Whitaker's .391 OBP.

>Actually, the way Mr Thornley explained it is correct; ROUGHLY, SLG and OBP
>are approximately of equal importance to scoring. The "fact" that 1 pt of
>OBP is "worth more" than 1 pt of SLG is an aritfact of the way they are 
>measured, and not due to any intrinisic value beyond that. As it happens now,

The problem here is, SLG left out a part that OBP does have that *should* have
*some* slugging value; the walk.  Walks moves some runners, and RC gives walks
.26 of a single in that component, which sounds about right.

>Then why don't you use it properly? None of these are hard-coded numbers, and
>there is a LOT of room to manuever. SLG apparantly CAN make up for lower 
>(relative to another team) OBP, as can speed, etc.

Of course it can.  But if two players have the same OPS but different OBP and
SLG, you should take the higher OBP, unless it's an extreme case like a taller
version of Eddie Gaedel.

===============================================================================
GO CALIFORNIA ANGELS!
===============================================================================
Nelson Lu (claudius@leland.stanford.edu)
From: paula@koufax.cv.hp.com (Paul Andresen)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Request ... Batting Leaders
Date: 5 Oct 92 19:47:58 GMT
Article-I.D.: hpcvaac.1992Oct5.194758.7953
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA

In article <1992Oct5.011341.27013@ultb.isc.rit.edu>, txa8755@ultb.isc.rit.edu (T.X. Agrawal) writes:
|> 
|> Could any one of you post the Batting Title leaders in NL and Al
|> for last 10 years and their averages ?


        NATIONAL LEAGUE         AMERICAN LEAGUE
1982    Al Oliver       .331    Willie Wilson  .332
1983    Bill Madlock    .323    Wade Boggs     .361
1984    Tonny Gwynn     .351    Don Mattingly  .343
1985    Willie McGee    .353    Wade Boggs     .368
1986    Tim Raines      .334    Wade Boggs     .357
1987    Tony Gwynn      .370    Wade Boggs     .363
1988    Tony Gwynn      .313    Wade Boggs     .366
1989    Tony Gwynn      .336    Kirby Puckett  .339
1990    Willie McGee    .335    George Brett   .329
1991    Terry Pendleton .319    Julio Franco   .341
1992    Gary Sheffield  .330    Edgar Martinez .343

Source:The Big Mac and the Franklin

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              If you're really hip, the passing years will show.
                                           ......Tower Of Power

  paula@koufax.cv.hp.com   Paul Andresen  Hewlett-Packard  (503)-750-3511

    home: 3006 NW McKinley    Corvallis, OR 97330       (503)-752-8424
                            A SABR member since 1979
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: thf2@quads.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell)
Subject: Re: Cal Eldred: what does the future hold?
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 01:04:31 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.193516.16705@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> franjion@spot.Colorado.EDU (John Franjione) writes:
>Well, Cal Eldred won his 10th game in a row last night against the
>Mariners.  Eldred is now 11-1 with an ERA of about 1.40 or so.
>
>What is the historical precedent for such a performance?  What other
>pitchers have come up in mid-season and pitched this well?  

The only one I can recall is Valenzuela coming up in September and
posting a 0.00 ERA in relief for the Dodgers in 1980.  He completely
shut down the Astros in a crucial three-game series that ended the
season--the Dodgers were three back and needed to win all three to
have a shot at a 163rd game.  (The Astros ended up winning the playoff,
though, and then went on to be edged by the Philadelphia Phillies in
what was probably the most exciting LCS up to that point.)

>The last pitcher coming up and appearing this god-like that I can
>remember is Calvin Schiraldi 1986.  And we all know what happened to
>him.

Schiraldi didn't do anything like this.  Closer would be Juan Guzman,
1991.  Guzman went on to look like he'd continue this year, posting the
best first half in baseball before he got injured.

Eldred for ROY?
-- 
           .. . . .  .  .   .    .     .     .    .   .  .  . . . ..
          ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
         the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: dfl@math.wayne.edu (David Frohardt-Lane)
Subject: Re: RC/MLV Study
Organization: Wayne State University Math Department, Detroit
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 23:23:44 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.000446.1353@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> z_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
>In article <1992Oct4.175653.337@cs.wayne.edu>, dfl@math.wayne.edu (David Frohardt-Lane) writes:
>> 
>> RC/27 predicts how many runs a team of that player would score per game.
>> Walks would be more valuable in a lineup of 9 Frank Thomas's than they
>> would be in a lineup of 9 Scott Livingstone's, because Thomas is better
>> at driving in runners than Livingstone.  But in real life, a walk from
>> Livingstone is just as valuable as one from Thomas.
>
>	Its just that for Thomas its pretty routine, but for Livingstone its
>about as commmon as Ed Hermann stealing a base.

That's true, but has nothing to do with what I'm saying.  What I meant
was that each individual walk Frank Thomas gets gives him more runs
created than it would give a lesser player, because RC is assuming that
the rest of the lineup is made up of Thomas clones.

--
David Frohardt-Lane   dfl@math.wayne.edu 
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Go Tigers, Lions, Pistons, Red Wings and Wolverines !!!!!!!!!!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: bks@s27w007.pswfs.gov (Bradley K. Sherman)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: A dumb question
Date: 6 Oct 1992 18:58:39 GMT
Organization: Institute of Forest Genetics DataBase
NNTP-Posting-Host: 192.131.1.21

In article <1992Oct6.131023.19992@cs.cornell.edu> tedward@cs.cornell.edu (Edward [Ted] Fischer) writes:
>
>Will LaRussa be starting Weiss in the playoffs?  It seems that he
>would have equally good defense with Bordick/Browne as with
>Weiss/Bordick (Weiss has reportedly lost a step), and Browne certainly
>has had the better bat this year!


Not Stupid at all.  Here in Oakland, we're all debating this same
question except with the added complication of Blankenship who
had a tad more power.

LaRussa will start Weiss.  Weiss has been in 3 world series.

Will LaRussa activate Dave Henderson? That's the question!

The only edge that the A's have over the Jays is that Carney, Rickey
& Ruben's averages will jump 20 points on the carpet.  If McGwire has
two extra base hits in the first two games, the A's will win.  If no
McGwire, no victory (hmmm, I guess they will walk Mac a lot  --watch out
for Baines in the 8th inning!).

My prediction:  A's over the Jays in 5 (winning games 1,3,4,5).

By the way, please note that the A's will win the World Series
easily if they can get by the Jays.  LaRussa has the perfect
team for National League style ball!  That goes double if Russell
is available.

Now _here's_ a dumb question:  The team with the extra home game
has won the last 5 World Series (at least).  What is the record
in the World Series versus the extra game, overall?

    --Brad Sherman
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: What is baseball?
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 04:50:37 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.013443.17807@cs.cornell.edu> tedward@cs.cornell.edu (Edward [Ted] Fischer) writes:
>In<carl.717641419@warper.jhuapl.edu> carl@warper.jhuapl.edu (Carl Lamy) writes:

>Seems that on the team level there is *less* variance between
>pitching/defenses than between offenses.  (Okay, so this isn't a
>proper variance, and it isn't done over many years.)  Which is
>strange, because it would seem to me that there is a slightly bigger
>difference between a great pitcher and a horrible pitcher than between
>a great hitter and a horrible hitter.  I guess it is just harder to
>get hold of more than your fair share of the quality pitchers.

Really?  Why does it seem strange to you?  With pitchers, there's a way
for even idiot GMs (redundant?) to measure how good they are -- ERA.  With 
batters, there's no such method.  (I mean, there IS such a method, but 
GMs don't know or understand it.)

I mean, the difference between the best pitchers (Clemens,Mussina,etc)
and the worst (Mesa,Milacki,etc) is only 4 runs per game.

On the other hand, look at the difference between Frank Thomas and 
Franklin Stubbs.  How many runs do each of *them* create per game?

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Orioles 1992 World Series Champions
niepornt@phoenix.    | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
   princeton.edu     | Brady Anderson 1992 AL MVP
Vote Clinton/Gore '92.   Four more months!	   SIGN BARRY BONDS!!!!
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: claudius@leland.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu)
Subject: A Case Study in "Clutch Pitching": Allan Anderson
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 92 05:01:31 GMT

Recently, one netter asked if pitchers give up a lot of hits and walks but
few runs are lucky or good.  Another netter (Ted Frank, I think) responds that
although he doesn't believe in clutch hitting, there is evidence that clutch
pitching exists.  Below, I will present a case, which might well be an
exception, but yet might be an example of possible indications why clutch
pitching, like clutch hitting, will be hard to prove.

For this case study, I will use Allan Anderson, who pitched for the Minnesota
Twins from 1986 to 1991.  He is a perfect example for my theory, as you can
see below.  Anderson is known for his career mediocrity (4.11 ERA) but for one
supposedly spectacular season (1988) when he led the league in ERA (2.45).
My assertion is, although Anderson did indeed have a better year in '88 than
he ever did in the other years of his career, the difference isn't so great
that he "should" have had the 2.45 ERA.  Instead, I think the evidence suggests
that he was plain lucky.

Anderson never had a <3.50 ERA season before or after '88.  These were his
ERA's in his career:

1986	5.55
1987	10.95
1988	2.45
1989	3.80
1990	4.53
1991	4.96

Nevertheless, I feel that evidence suggests that he did *not* pitch
significantly differently than in other years in that career year:

1.	That year's opponent OBP, although lower than he ever got in his
	career, isn't all that lower than 1989 and 1990, when his ERA was a
	lot worse.  Here is his vs. OBP for 1988-1991:

	1988	.290
	1989	.316
	1990	.317
	1991	.325

	There is a difference, but not a big difference.

2.	Although it is impossible for me to calculate his opponent SLG from
	the stats given in GABSB, here is the percentage of batters who faced
	him who got homers:

	1988	1.72%
	1989	1.77%
	1990	2.51%
	1991	4.11%

	Particularly notice 1988 and 1989, which are almost identical.

	If the number of homers were an indication of opponent SLG, then his
	opponent SLG wasn't all that different.

We can see that he did have a better season in 1988 than in 1989.  However,
30 points of OBP and miniscule differences in SLG "shouldn't" have translated
into the big jump in ERA (2.45 -> 3.80 is about a 55% jump).  So, what are the
possibilities?

1.	"Clutch pitching" exists, and he picked up the ability in '88, and
	lost it the following year.

2.	"Clutch pitching" exists, and Anderson's ERA decline was due to
	something else.

3.	"Clutch pitching" does not exist, at least in the case of Anderson.

I don't think I can prove or disprove any of the 3, but I would have to believe
that Anderson's performance wasn't really all that different in '88 than in
the later seasons; and the difference in ERA came from luck, not ability.

===============================================================================
GO CALIFORNIA ANGELS!
===============================================================================
Nelson Lu (claudius@leland.stanford.edu)
From: genetic+@pitt.edu (Dr. Dave)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Morris: more fuel for this debate
Date: 6 Oct 92 19:47:57 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Department of Industrial Engineering

Thus spake fester@island.COM (Mike Fester):

>>Put it this way: according to the "Pythagorean" formula, if he had gotten
>>*Jim Abbott*'s run support, his record would be a 7-19.  Enough said.
>
>Well, Jim Abbott, with 2.77 ERA (~1.3 Lower than Jack's) went 7 - 15! So, if
>we assume that the PyT is a reasonable predictor, he doesn't look much worse
>for the Angels than Abbott!

I agree.  That's why I said that Morris has had *less* to do with the Jays'
record than other pitchers on the team.  Pitchers who get extreme run support,
good or bad, tend to have about the same record, no matter how they pitch.
(I mean, of course, that all of those with great run support have great W/L
records, and all of those with crappy run support have crappy W/L records...)
So, their personal pitching doesn't have any significant effect on the team's
overall record.  


-- 
       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: demers@cs.ucsd.edu (David DeMers)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Gary Sheffield
Date: 1 Oct 92 18:42:59 GMT
Organization: =CSE Dept., U.C. San Diego

In article <19t04lINN91d@email.sp.unisys.com> fhs@email.sp.unisys.com (Fred Sobottka) writes:
>Who did the Brewers get in the Sheffield trade anyway?? 

Ricky Bones, who is a solid #6 starter :-) (maybe a bit
better) and two good prospects; Matt Mieske, who was
MVP of Calif. league last year, I believe, and led all
minor leaguers in OBP, going .341/.456/.530.  
He was also MVP of the Northwest league in 1990, I think.
He's not young, however; 24 this season (AAA?) but
could have a decent career.  OF, average defensively,
good speed, some power, great batting eye.  If he can
play CF he'll be dynamite, but I seem to recall him
being just adequate in LF, so likely he's going to 
be merely decent.  High Desert was one of the best
offensive parks in the Calif. League, which is an
offensive league, so the MLE is probably lower than
you might think (I didn't compute it); however, I think
anybody who can draw 94 BBs while hitting .341 with power
is a decent prospect...

The other player was Jose Valentin, the Padres top SS
prospect, who was .251/.335/.436 at Wichita AA (Texas league)
(MLE is .208/.260/.333; ugh)
in 1991.  Slick fielder, this was his first season with
much of a bat.  He's 23 with 6 pro seasons behind him,
so he's definitely a good prospect, but there seem to
be a lot of good fielding SSs with no bat, so I wouldn't
expect a major league career out of him.

I was against the trade, because these were two of the best
prospects in a thin farm system.  But this year it
seems to have worked out :-)

I don't have 1992 stats for these guys handy, but I seem to
recall that Mieske had a good enough year to make the
top 15 for the expansion draft.

-- 
Dave DeMers			 ddemers@UCSD   demers@cs.ucsd.edu
Computer Science & Engineering	C-014		demers%cs@ucsd.bitnet
UC San Diego					...!ucsd!cs!demers
La Jolla, CA 92093-0114	(619) 534-0688, or -8187, FAX: (619) 534-7029
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: jhg8680@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Jon  Hamkins)
Subject: Re: Real-life rulebook trivia
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 15:28:08 GMT

lbr@holos0.uucp (Len Reed) writes:

>In article <trn.717367284@warper.jhuapl.edu> trn@warper.jhuapl.edu (Tony Nardo) writes:

>>No.  7.02 states the the runner must *retouch* all bases in reverse order if
>>forced to return.  Assuming that the batter-runner was somehow retired before
>>reaching first base, you could not nail the runner for missing second *twice*.
>>You can't retouch something you haven't touched.

>I think you're grasping at semantic straws here.  The baseball rulebook
>is notoriously badly written.  I claim that "retouch" here is used
>without the thought that the runner might have been stupid enough to
>have already missed the base once.  

The rulebook does deal with a wide variety of stupid things the
players can do, including missing bases.  Why should we try and twist
what the rulebook says?  The rules were meant to be taken literally.
(Although, I agree that they could be written better.)

You can change "retouch" to "touch"
>and have the same meaning in all cases except the specific one that
>we are arguing about

Naturally, if you changed the rulebook, it would support your position.
But it doesn't currently.  

>The "re" in "retouch" isn't there to
>mean, as you claim, that perhaps he didn't touch it at all and this rule
>doesn't apply.  If the meaning were that perverse they'd have spelled
>it out in detail.  No, they said "retouch" simply because it more naturally
>comes to mind in describing what happens when a runner is going in
>the reverse direction.

No, they said "retouch" because you are required to touch the bases in
advancing and retouch them when returning:  "In advancing, a runner
shall touch 1st, 2nd, 3rd and home base in order.  If forced to return,
he shall retouch all bases in reverse order..."

I agree with Tony.  You can't retouch something you haven't touched.

     ----Jon Hamkins  (hamkins@uiuc.edu)
         University of Illinios
         Urbana, IL
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: mjones@fenway.aix.kingston.ibm.com (Mike Jones)
Subject: Re: Cy Young?
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 17:54:31 GMT
Reply-To: mjones@donald.aix.kingston.ibm.com
Organization: IBM Corp. Kingston NY

In article <1992Sep30.152408.13146@cs.rose-hulman.edu> rileyrm@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu writes:
>In article <25670@oasys.dt.navy.mil> kiviat@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Brian  
>Kiviat) writes:
>> Just as the title line says.....Who should win the Cy Young
>Are you concerned with the National League or the American league?
>The national league has to be Tom Glavine without a doubt.  No other  
>pitcher has excelled the way he has in the national league.

Er, um, ever heard of Greg Maddux? Bob Tewksbury? Neither of them has as
many wins, but neither has the Braves offense behind them. Maddux' ERA is
impressive. Figure in that he pitches half his games in Wrigley Field and
it's downright amazing. Maddux has 11 losses; in seven of them, the Cubs
were shut out.

>The american league would probably have to be Roger Clemens again.  Same  
>story.

With Clemens' slight fade toward the end of the season, I think you have to
consider Mussina, Appier, and (if you don't object to relievers winning the
Cy) Eckersley. But yeah, I'd go for Roger.

   Mike Jones  |  AIX/ESA Development  |  mjones@donald.aix.kingston.ibm.com

A bank is a place where they lend you an umbrella in fair weather and ask for
it back when it begins to rain.
	- Robert Frost