HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Bonds "choke"?
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 12:40:09 GMT

In article <Oct.2.02.06.26.1992.17999@pilot.njin.net> gajarsky@pilot.njin.net (Bob Gajarsky) writes:
>i believe bill james said roughly the same thing in this year's baseball
> book - that being "you can't tell on an individual basis who is better
> and who isn't, because the space is too small, and the effects of
> being a clutch performer are greatly exaggerated by most of the media,
> but it DOES exist, at least a little bit."

>i think the comparison he used was that the media thinks it's an elephant,
> and it really is the size of a roach.

>but it exists.    i believe eddie murray is a clutch player, beacuse
> he has done it over lots and lots of at bats.

Except that: when his ten-year string of hitting better with men on base
was pointed out, he promptly went out and had three *lousy* years in a
row.  Since what we're looking for is *consistent* performance, and
*predictable* performance, I'd say our sample of 1 has so far disappointed us.

>there's one other interesting question around the "clutch" factor.

>if - barry bonds normally hitst .300 (assume batting average is the end-all
> stat), and in the playoffs hits .250.  you'd say he chokes, right?
> well, how about the .200 shortstop who hits .250 in the 7 game
> playoff series?  clutch?  

Well, since this is the difference between 4-for-20, 5-for-20, and 6-for-
20, you're reducing the definition to about 1 hit in a series.  And anyone
who cries "choke" on those grounds deserves anything he gets.  (I'm not
saying you're doing this.)

Roger
Date: Sunday, 27 Sep 1992 22:08:29 EST
From: <RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: AL Game Score Report through 9/21 Part 1

does it bother anyone besides me that, in bill james' "game score" stat,
there are games which are better than perfect games?

for example, in 1991, dennis martinez pitched a perfect game.  yet there
were five games which had higher game scores, and three others with the
same game score.  this is primarily (nay, solely) because martinez struck
out only five batters.

how can david cone's game in which he walked one and gave up three hits be
considered "better" than a perfect game, just because cone struck out 19?

you probably could argue that cone's game gave less chances for the fielders
to fuck up, and thus is better from a pitching standpoint.  this might be
true.  however, i think it is generally agreed that the vast majority of
team defense is due to the pitcher... if a pitcher can get a batter to
hit the ball towards second, generally any second baseman can get the batter
out.  so it is more, in my opinion, the pitcher's doing, rather than the
second baseman's.

does it really matter that martinez only struck out five? an out's an out's
an out, if you never let anyone on base.




Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: peppler@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Randy Peppler)
Subject: Re: Attendence figures
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 22:01:38 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.210600.5795@newshub.ariel.yorku.ca> cs902060@ariel.yorku.ca (GEOFFREY E DIAS) writes:
>
>	I just read in the newspaper that the Skydome in Toronto had
>only 35,000 unsold seats in the entire season! I wonder how many stadiums
>had this figure for one game?
>

	Could someone post the final attendance figures for all of the
	teams?

-- 
-------------------------------
| Randy Peppler               |
| Illinois State Water Survey |
| peppler@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu    |
From: RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Bonds "choke"?
Date: 2 Oct 92 23:35:31 GMT
Article-I.D.: vma.92276.183531RVESTERM
 <6mapw9=@lynx.unm.edu>

in a second post, he goes on to say, "it is incorrect to say that because
they reacted well or poorly, they are a clutch or choke hitter."

great, dude.  wonderful.  except i never said that.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Date: Tuesday, 29 Sep 1992 16:52:48 EST
From: <RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: god, i'm immature

anybody besides me still get that pre-adolescent rush from looking up
dirty words in the dictionary?

my franklin baseball encyclopedia contains the following gem: one
charles tebeau accumulated six at bats with the 1895 cleveland spiders.
mr. tebeau's nickname was (i kid you not) "pussy".

however, i was dissapointed to find that there has never been a
"shithead" who played major league baseball.
From: psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Now on with the show...
Date: 28 Sep 92 19:33:00 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh


Now that the '92 season is winding down, who was the keeper of the sacred
predictions?

I do hope that someone who promised to rub it all in our faces this October
kept everything 8^)

PSG
From: grabiner@math.harvard.edu (David Grabiner)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: minnie minoso
Date: 1 Oct 92 19:57:04 GMT
Article-I.D.: birkhoff.GRABINER.92Oct1155702
Distribution: na
Organization: /etc/organization
In-reply-to: sager@cbnewsf.cb.att.com's message of Thu, 1 Oct 1992 05:38:43 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.053843.24391@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, mike.r.sager writes:

> Minnie Minoso is a former White Sox player and coach.  Currently, I
> think he still has ties to the team in some other capacity.  They brought
> him out of retirement in the seventies so that he could become the first
> player to play in five different decades.  They brought him back again
> in the eighties to make it six decades.  As for the nineties, they wanted
> to bring him back, but Faye Vincent rejected the move.

But Vincent is no longer commissioner; maybe it will now be "in the best
interests of baseball" for Minoso to become a six-decade player.  (He
came up in 1949, so the 1980 appearance was only his fifth decade.)


--
David Grabiner, grabiner@zariski.harvard.edu
"We are sorry, but the number you have dialed is imaginary."
"Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and try again."
Disclaimer: I speak for no one and no one speaks for me.
From: brock@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (Bradley W. Brock)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Cy Young?
Date: 30 Sep 92 23:44:23 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.1992Sep30.234423.19764
Organization: Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology


In article <1992Sep30.220017.14677@Princeton.EDU>  
niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
> In article <1992Sep30.152408.13146@cs.rose-hulman.edu>  
rileyrm@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu writes:
> >Question:  if Clemens wins, won't that give him more Cys than any other  
> >pitcher in history?
> 
> I believe it ties him with Seaver for the most (4) in history.

I think you mean Carlton not Seaver.

--
Bradley W. Brock, Department of Mathematics
Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology  | "Honor one another above yourselves."
brock@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu       | -Paul of Tarsus to the Romans
Organization: Senior, Electrical and Computer Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 16:01:45 -0400 
From: Amit Likhyani <al1x+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: attendance 9/22 (was: Re: If you thought last year was bad)
	<2305@h.cs.wvu.wvnet.edu>
Distribution: usa

They are talking about cutting out the 10,000 seats underneath the
centerfield scoreboard.  The front office thinks that the stadium is too
big.  They don't want people to think that they can just walk into the
ballpark and grab a seat.  They think they can increase demand by
reducing the supply of seats.

I don't see what good that will do, but I think they should make the bad
seats really cheap.  I don't have a problem paying for the good seats,
but the upper level outfield seats are just brutal.  There is no point
even going in all honesty.  I think if they dropped these prices to like
$3 and left the box seats alone, everyone would be happy.  They don't
sell those seats anyway,  and people who go to the stadium do buy
concessions.

I wonder what would happen if the Pirates built a stadium like the Orioles.
I am also curious about what will happen next year to the O's.  A lot of
people who don't even like baseball went to Camden Yards just because it
was a social event and had a lot of novelty.  Next year, that will go
away, but I suspect the O's will still sell the place out.  Season
ticket sales will be renewed and I'll bet the O's may have made baseball
fans out of a lot people who were not before.  The also had better
attendance than the Pirates when they played in Memorial stadium. 
Unfortunately, there are not that many parallels in the 2 cities.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: mjones@fenway.aix.kingston.ibm.com (Mike Jones)
Subject: Re: Entries for the 1992 Baseball Playoff Choke Awards
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 92 22:57:47 GMT
Reply-To: mjones@donald.aix.kingston.ibm.com
Organization: IBM Corp. Kingston NY

In article <1992Oct6.202009.29560@Princeton.EDU> richmond@spiff.Princeton.EDU (Stupendous Man) writes:
>  Welcome to the 1992 Baseball Playoff Choker Awards!  Several weeks ago,
	...
>      Since only the 3 "best" players qualify, we need to pick them ahead
>      of time for this objective :-) survey of choking.  Warren didn't
>      list players (*), so I will:
>
>             Jays:     Alomar, Carter, Winfield

Hey! Hey! You forgot Jack "big game" "pitches to the score" "winner" "Cy
Young candidate - NOT!" Morris. After the sort of claims that have been made
for this guy, I'd call it a choke if he throws a ball!

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

Nice boy, but about as sharp as a sack of wet mice.
	- Foghorn Leghorn
From: charly@hal.COM (Charly Rhoades)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Bonds "choke"?
Date: 30 Sep 92 21:16:17 GMT
Organization: HaL Computer Systems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: renoir.hal.com

In article <1992Sep30.055359.308@odin.corp.sgi.com> kubey@sgi.com (Ken Kubey) writes:
>In article <1992Sep29.223917.682@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Sep29.005602.528@odin.corp.sgi.com> kubey@sgi.com (Ken Kubey) writes:

>>>How bad will Barry Bonds choke in the 1992 NLCS?
>>>
>>>Extra Disclaimer:  I have nothing against the Pirates, their fans, 
>>>or Mr. Bonds.  I just happen to believe in clutch hitters and 
>>>choke hitters and I believe that Mr. Bonds will choke again.
>>
>>Like Reggie Jackson's 3 for 18 in his first three World Series?
>
>Did Reggie's team lose any of those Series?
>
>How many WS rings does Jackson have?   How many does Bonds have?

This is getting a bit ludicrous, but I'm strangely compelled to
make one last attempt at persuasion....

Whether he performs badly again (more accurate than "chokes"), Barry
Bonds will have been instrumental in getting the team *to the playoffs*.

And no matter how instrumental he is in any series of games (or an
entire season of games), no one player is *that* critical to the outcome
to be held entirely responsible for it.  That's what I'm receiving
from you.  Is that what you wish to send?

Why rag on Bonds so?  Was he the reason the Pirates lost?  Was his
performance with the bat any worse than anyone else's?  Was his (and
the other Pirate batters') offensive performance more important than
the few, but horrendously catastrophic innings of Bad Pitching (TM)
by Pirate hurlers?

I'd post the numbers (again) if I thought you'd even care what the
answers to these specific fact-based questions are.  But it seems to
me you want to continue the petulant "Bonds is a choker!  Bonds is a
choker!" playground chant.

Or is it that you just love seeing such an obviously good player fail?

How would you feel if SGI's Indigo workstation fails miserably, and
afterward the stockholders constantly announce "Kubey choked!
Kubey can't make deadlines!  Kubey can't perform!"??  Even if you
*had* screwed up on that one project, you weren't the only one on
the team.  And ignores all previous good work you have accomplished.
-- 
   Charly Rhoades               
                                   This message provided for
   HaL Computer Systems           informational purposes only
   charly@hal.com
From: kubey@sgi.com (Ken Kubey)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Bonds "choke"?
Date: 1 Oct 92 01:43:07 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA

In article <1992Oct1.001842.27995@adobe.com> snichols@adobe.com (Sherri Nichols) writes:
>In article <1992Sep30.225111.26316@odin.corp.sgi.com> kubey@sgi.com (Ken Kubey) writes:
>>>Was he the reason the Pirates lost?  
>>
>>If he had hit .300 in the 1991 NLCS would the Pirates have won?

Just answer the question as honestly as you can.

>Here's really the crux of why I think your argument is seriously flawed.
>
>The Pirates and the Braves played a very tight series that went a full
>seven games.  If you played that seven-game series again, and everybody had
>the exact same cumulative performance over that seven-game series, there's
>a good chance the outcome would be different.  

Okay, I can see that.

>Hey, Jay Bell hit .414 in the 91 NLCS, and the Pirates lost.  Why do you
>think Bonds hitting .300 would mean the Pirates would win?

What did he hit?  .150 maybe?  How many precious outs did he use up?
How many men did he leave on base?  

If Jay Bell had hit .560 it could easily have put the Pirates over the top.
Now, what's more likely, Bonds hitting .300 or Bell hitting .560?

>It would seem to me that if you believe in "choke"/"clutch", you would
>believe that the variance in performance over a seven-game playoff series
>is higher than the variance in performance over some random 7-game stretch.
>Do you?  And why?

Yes.  The pressure.  And I'm sure you can come up with plenty of random
7 game stretches where Bonds hit worse than he does in the playoffs.
That only proves that you could be right and that I am probably wrong.
But it doesn't prove anything.  I wish we could somehow get Barry 
500 playoff at-bats so that we'd have a significant sample, but that 
isn't going to happen.
>
>>SGI doesn't pay me $3,000,000 a year so I wouldn't expect that kind
>>of abuse.  If SGI *did* pay me $3,000,000 a year I would feel a
>>lot more responsible for the company's performance and would accept
>>blame if things went wrong. 
>
>So, did "chokers" not exist in the old days, when players were paid poorly?

Okay, if you don't like the money angle... there are 2500 people in
my company.  It's pretty hard for 1 person to blow it for the whole team.
If I worked for a 25 or 30 person company, things would be different.
Everything I did would likely make a big difference on the bottom line.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name:       Ken Kubey  or  QB   |  Reading, editing or printing of this text
Address:    kubey@sgi.com       |  without the express written consent of
Disclaimer: the usual           |  Major League Baseball is prohibited.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Monday, 28 Sep 1992 18:41:24 EST
From: <RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Elias/STATS projections

re: stats 57 points off, elias 82 points off (or whatever).

i wouldn't say "stats' predictions are better than elias' predictions,"
i would say "stats' predictions and elias' predictions are both bullshit."

i tried this at the all-star break:  i only considered batting average,
because i am lazy, and compared stats to elias.  i found they both bit the
big wazoo.  i then made up my own idiotic prediction system, which was
this: assume everyone is a perfectly average batter.

my idiotic system actually predicted batting average better than either
stats OR elias did.

hence, the both bill james and the hirdts are talking out of their buttocks.

they should stick to stats, and give up on predictions, i think.

i could be wrong, of course.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: lsmith@myria.cs.umn.edu (Lance "Squiddie" Smith)
Subject: SDCNs Rejoice
Organization: The Stat Drunk Squids of the Poor
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 01:02:45 GMT

Well, we're getting down to the big day for SDCNs. Not the World Series.
That's meaningless after all. No, in just a few short days the end of 
the season statistics will be published and oh the calculating we shall
do!

Seriously, I was looking through a pop culture (read comic book) distributors 
catalog for December and they're already listing STATS products for 1993. 
Along with the The Major and Minor League Handbooks (which the average SDCN
will find indispensable), STATS is also offering something new this year
called Player Profiles. The frightening thought is this might have the same
sort of details they included about a few players in last year's Major League
Handbook. Or maybe it will just be the stuff that Elias puts out every year.
(Either way, it probably means we no longer need to buy Elias, right?)

Anyone closer to STATS or the book biz know anything about this? 
--
     Lance "William Blake?" Smith     |   "Bring me my bat of burning gold!
         (lsmith@cs.umn.edu)          |    Bring me my pine tar of desire!
 "The Cat. He walked by himself, and  |    Bring me my glove! O clouds unfold!
    all places were alike to him."    |    Bring me my fastball of fire!"
From: gajarsky@pilot.njin.net (Bob Gajarsky)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: What is baseball?
Date: 27 Sep 92 14:33:03 GMT
Organization: Somewhere in Hoboken


I'm quite sure that some people think pitching is (80, 90, pick
 a number) % of the game.  for those people, this post is for you.

there is one thing that every *team* (NOT pitcher - just ignore
pitcher's
 individual records for a minute) wants to do - win.  there is one
 way to win; have more runs than your opponent.  to do that, there
 are two keys; score runs (offense), and stop runs from scoring
 (defense).

having broken it down into its purest form, how can anyone state
 that pitching is (80?) percent of the game?  at least over a 
 162 game season???

the reason it changes a little bit in the playoffs is because of
 the offdays.  during the regular season, a starting pitcher who
 works 200 innings will face approximately 850 batters; maybe a
 little bit more.  a starting player will be up at the plate,
 if he plays in 150 games, about 600-625 times.  so, this 
 individual *pitcher* has more effect than the individual *hitter*,
 but only by a magnitude of about 1.4.  However, in the
 playoffs, or world series, odds are (like jack morris last
 year), if a team can work it in, their best pitcher will work
 games 1, 4, and 7.  a starting pitcher who goes 6 innings each
 time (the same number i assumed before) faces about 75 batters; 
 meanwhile, a starting *position* player, in a 7 game series, 
 will only get 30 at bats.  that's about a 2 1/2 times advantage
 for a good pitcher.

if athe playoffs were constructed like the regular season, without
 so many off days, the difference in INDIVIDUAL pitchers versus
 hitters would not be so pronounced.  if a team has 3 good pitchers,
 and nothing on the rest of the staff, they will be better for a
 short series than a team that has 4 fair-good pitchers and a decent
 overall staff.  

but anyhow.  i'd like to hear from the people who believe that
pitching
 is 75% of the game during the regular season.  explain WHY
 you believe it.  it might prove interesting.

- bob gaj
From: dpassage@soda.berkeley.edu (David G. Paschich)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Unified Stathead Theory
Date: 6 Oct 92 15:08:33
Organization: Organization?  Who cares?  You just gotta say "Go Bears!"
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: aardvark@locus.com's message of Mon, 05 Oct 1992 22:16:46 GMT

In article <1992Oct05.221646.831201@locus.com>, 
	aardvark@locus.com (Warren Usui) writes:

   Finally I ran it 12,500 times for a total of 100,000 games, and 
   the total number of runs scored was 314159!  I now propose the
   following algorithm for computing pi, one that I believe to be completely
   original:

	   1. Take an average baseball team
	   2. Randomly insert one player into the lineup who always strikes out 
	   3. See how many runs that team scores.

   As this series continues to infinity, the average number of runs scored
   approaches pi.

Yet another argument against the DH.

David Paschich

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: thf2@quads.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell)
Subject: Re: Lead off walks....
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 22:23:03 GMT

>>Effect of first event in inning, both leagues, 1984-1991
>
>
>>Leadoff		Prob of >= 1 run	Avg. number of runs
>>-------------------------------------------------------------
>>single	.428			.855
>>walk		.432			.865

I'm assuming that over eight years of data, the difference is statistically
significant.

My hypothesis: more runs score with a leadoff walk than a leadoff
single because walks are relatively more likely to come in the middle
of the lineup with good hitters up.  (In other words, with the 7-8-9
sequence of batters, the #7 hitter is going to have a higher ratio
of singles to walks than the #3 hitter.)

Don't have a quick way to test this, my GABSB with the lineup spot
breakdowns of hitters is at home.

>>error		.441			.867

Similarly, faster runners are more likely to get on base via errors
than slower runners, and are therefore (1) more likely to be hitting
in front of good hitters in the Conventional Wisdom lineup, and (2)
more likely to successfully steal bases and get themselves in scoring
position, go from first to third on a single, etc. 

(I am right about the Rickey Hendersons of the world forcing errors
much more often than the Tony Penas, right?)
-- 
           .. . . .  .  .   .    .     .     .    .   .  .  . . . ..
          ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
         the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: eebonar@sn01.sncc.lsu.edu (Dave Bonar)
Subject: Re: Astros
Nntp-Posting-Host-[nntpd-11698]: sn01.sncc.lsu.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Reply-To: eebonar@sn01.sncc.lsu.edu
Organization: News and Views from LSU
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 14:58:30 GMT

In article <16872CE81.ISTRE-A@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU>, istre@ricevm1.rice.edu writes...
>In article <1992Sep28.162138.1226@ccsvax.sfasu.edu>
>z_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
> 
>>        Shortstop is a different situation. Yelding simply doesn't have the OBA
>>to be an everyday majorleaguer. Cedeno has the SLG, but his OBA is worse than
>>Yelding's, and he is slower on the basepaths and is pretty bad defensively. And
>>I don't see Ramirez as the starting ss...
>>
>It might interest you to know that the Astros have sent their first pick of
>the draft, Cal-Fullerton 3rd baseman Phil Nevin to their instruction league
>to learn the shortstop postion. That is very smart because Ken Caminitti all
>but owns the 3rd base spot with the 'stros and has been very solid both in
>the field and at the plate. With Bagwell at 1st base and Biggio at second,
>the 'stros stand have a very solid infield for years to come once they get
>the shortstop postion nailed down.

	Why does this news make my shiver?

	Caminiti is having a very good year.  However, he hasn't looked 
nearly this good in the past and is 29.  While I expect that at least some
of his increased offensive output is real I also think that some of it is
just the result of his career year.

	With that in mind I think it makes more sense to let Phil Nevin
stay at the position he knows and just worry about hitting well enough to
make the majors.  Cedeno is still very young and did much better in 91
(limited plate appearences but not that limited).  I'd let Caminiti attempt
the move to SS (he has played there before in the majors) and have him
challenge Cedeno for the SS position when Nevin is ready.

Dave
__________
Dave Bonar
eebonar@lsuvax.sncc.lsu.edu
__________

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball