HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sfh@po.CWRU.Edu (Steven F. Hubbard)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: joe carter and others
Date: 15 Dec 1992 01:31:21 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: sfh@po.CWRU.Edu (Steven F. Hubbard)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, dave@snitor.sni.ca (Dave Till) says:

>In article <14DEC199211283410@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu> doctor8@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu (Jason Abner Miller) writes:
>>	One addition to this:  Often, the "ability" to walk is based on
>>a player's own philosophy, i.e. patience at the plate.
>
>I've asked this question before, but I wonder:  how much of a player's BB
>total is based on his patience, lack of selfishness, etc., and how much
>is just innate skill?

  Good question in response to the other question of selfishness.

>
>To put it another way:  do people here really believe that Joe Carter
>and Andre Dawson could walk 75 times a year if they were less "selfish"?
>Can we list the moral worth of major league hitters by printing out the
>BB totals in order?

  Of course not.  Good point.
>
>As a Jays fan, I feel compelled to defend Carter in this way:  considering
>that Carter is, by all other measures, a team player (he switches positions
>when asked, bunts, plays hard every day, and seems a cheerful sort),
>I find it difficult to believe that Carter's low OBP is a consequence of
>Joe's wanting to grab all the RBIs for himself.

   I don't think Joe's up at the plate thinking, "I'm going to swing at
bad pitches because I might get some RBI's".  It's a question of skill like
you mentioned before.  Joe Carter simply doesn't have the skill at taking
pitches like Rickey Henderson.  I like Joe Carter because, from what I've
seen of him, he looks like a nice guy.  His offense is good; he runs well;
he fields well.  However, I can't possibly defend his low OBP.  It's a weakness
in his game.  Is there a weakness in Rickey's game?

   I suppose, if I had to pick on Rickey, I'd say he has a weak arm in the
outfield.  His offense does not have a weakness like Carter's.  This thread
started with a discussion of how a team with 9 Hendersons would compare with
a team of 9 Carters.  I'd put my money on Henderson.  It's a lineup without
a weak point.  

SfH
>

-- 
Steven F. Hubbard                ** "You can't squeeze water out of a rock
Case Western Reserve University  **      or a turnip, or whatever." 
Department of Physics            **  
Cleveland, OH 44106              **  -- John Madden
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: spira@panix.com (Greg "Sarcasm Is A Way Of Life" Spira)
Subject: Re: Roger Angell on women sportswriters
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 18:00:27 GMT
Organization: Boo! 

In <11DEC92.01271165@vax.clarku.edu> hhenderson@vax.clarku.edu writes:

>Sherri Nichols writes:

>>Somebody mentioned that Roger Angell had done an article on the controversy 
>>about women sportswriters and locker rooms that was included in one of his 
>>collections.  I poked around and found it last night, and I'd like to 
>>reiterate the poster's recommendation of it.  It was written in March of 
>>1979, and appears in _Late Innings_ (and originally, in _The New Yorker_), 
>>and is titled "Sharing the Beat".  He includes a number of interviews with 
>>both male and female sportswriters.  (I have to note that this article did
>>nothing to raise my already low opinion of Jerome Holtzman). 

>Actually, Holtzman's remarks didn't bother me as much as Maury Allen's.  At
>least Holtzman admitted that his attitude about women not belonging in the
>clubhouse or the press box made him a chauvinist.  Allen didn't have the
>intellectual honesty to make that kind of admission.  

I remember being, well, confused that one of the few sportswriters I
admired, Red Smith, could not bring himself to agree that women should
reporters should be allowed in the locker room if men reporters are,
while Dick Young, one of the most detestable sportswriters ever,
ended up supporting the women reporters.

Not that this even began to make up for all of Dick Young's garbage.
His biggest crime was driving Tom Seaver out of New York, but there
were many, many others.

Greg
From: jose@math.duke.edu (Greg Lawler)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: NL East analysis.k
Date: 17 Dec 92 20:32:26 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.064945.24146@bradley.bradley.edu>, dave@bradley.bradley.edu (David Vessell) writes:
> 
> Well, you failed to take into consideration that, in all likelihood, Jose
> Oquendo will resume his starting position at 2nd for the Cardinals.  His
> ..300 bat and 40+ SB speed might make more of a difference than Pena.
> 
> -- 
  I think you are right that Jose may return to second base.  His defense
is much better than Pena's.  However even I (an Oquendo fan since 1980)
must admit that he does not have 40+ SB speed ;  also, while he might hit
.300, a .275 average (with a lot of walks) is more to be expected.

Greg Lawler
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: a0s5109@titan.ucc.umass.edu (John Norcott)
Subject: Minor league Encyclopedia
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 19:37:16 GMT

I ordered Baseball America's Minor League Encyclopedia in November and 
haven't received it yet.  Has anyone ordered it AND received it yet???
I can't find the number I used to order it, so if anyone could post it,
I would appreciate it.  <If you haven't heard of it, well it is supposed
to be the complete history of all of the minors from the turn of the 
century to the present.  It would make a great XMas gift IF I WOULD EVER
GET IT !!!>


-- 
john k norcott                   "Th' self is a PRISON to which we're all
a0s5109@titan.ucc.umass.edu     condemned... and it's a LIFE SENTENCE, pal !"
   i'll work for beer                 Mr. Toad in Zippy   11/4/92
ANARCHISTS UNITE !!! <in 93>        Nothing beats Dirt like a Duck.
From: dxf12@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas Fowler)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: All-Name League (was RE: All-Henderson Team)
Date: 15 Dec 1992 16:32:28 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: dxf12@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas Fowler)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc12.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94000) says:

>In article <15DEC92.03193833@vax.clarku.edu> hhenderson@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>>
>>Presenting:
>>
>>*The Clan Henderson*
>>Motto: "Sola virtus nobilitat" (Hit 'em where they ain't)
>>
>>Dave Henderson
>>Ken Henderson
>>Rickey Henderson
>>Steve Henderson
>>Bernie Henderson (0-1 in 1921)
>>Bill Henderson (0-0 in 1930)
>>Ed Henderson (1-1 in 1914)
>>Hardie Henderson (81-121 from 1883-'88)
>>Joe Henderson (3-2 from 1974-'77)
>>
>>Our opponents in the All-Name League:  The Smith Brothers, The
>>James Gang, The Jolly Millers, The Vodka Collins (well, maybe the
>>League wouldn't approve of that name), The Fabulous Baker Boys...
>>there must be more...?
>>
>I don't have at hand the reference books needed to do this thread
>justice, but off the top of my head, I'd say the All-Williams team
>(Ted, Billy, Ken, Cy, Matt, Stan,...) looks pretty good.  The
>All-Robinson team (Jackie, Frank, Brooks,...) should contend, too.

     There were about 10 Davis' in the majors about 6 or 7 years back,
though I think most of them were pitchers or outfielders.  Still,  an
amazing total.  So, I don't think I have to go back in history at all to
get:
     Alvin (Seattle), Mark (then w/San Diego), Mike (A's - may have been
in L.A. by then), Storm (S.D. or Oakland then), Joel (White Sox),
Chili (Giants), Glenn (Astros), and a couple others. (Maybe a few September
callups boosted it; I know there were a couple others at the same time but
I can't think of who they might be.)
-- 
Doug Fowler: dxf12@po.CWRU.edu  : Me, age 4 & now: "Mommys and Daddys & other
    Ever wonder if, after Casey : relatives have to give lots of hugs & love
missed the 3rd strike in the poem: & support, 'cause Heaven is just a great
he ran to first and made it?     : big hug that lasts forever and ever!!!"
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: spira@panix.com (Greg "Sarcasm Is A Way Of Life" Spira)
Subject: Re: idiots.
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 06:23:04 GMT
Organization: Boo! 

>In article <1992Dec14.195327.15056@asd.com> scott@asd.com (Scott Barman) writes:

>>was more of a public relations move, I would call that correct.  But to
>>say letting Strawberry go because the papers didn't like him is totally
>>wrong.  In fact, the sentiment was more on the lines of, "sure
>>Strawberry is an *sshole, but he's an *sshole who can hit, be a threat,
>>and adequately field.  Sign him!"  But it was Strawberry, the Los
>>Angeles native, who said in a 1988 interview that he wanted to play "at
>>home."  It was Strawberry who was openly critical with Mets management
>>(specifically then GM Frank Cashen, who of course did nothing to help
>>this situation by criticizing back).  It was Strawberry (and his agent,
>>of course) who broke off mid-season talks with the Mets on a contract
>>extension.  It was Strawberry who ran to negotiate with the Dodgers,
>>refusing to take calls from the Mets until they had a deal nearly
>>finalized and saying, "give us your offer" without giving the team a
>>chance to negotiate their position.  Strawberry wanted LA and he got it,
>>reguardless of the feelings of the Mets' front office.

I disagree with this interpretation of what happened.  Yes, Strawberry
at times said he'd rather play in LA.  But at other times he said he
would like to return to New York.  In fact, there is hardly a position
that Strawberry didn't take at some point on matters he was asked to
discuss.  By 1987, I had given up taking Strawberry's quotes seriously,
because whatever Straw said that day he would contradict the next day.

From my vantage point, Strawberry appeared to be a very confused
immature guy who really didn't have the faintest idea of what he
really thought about stuff.

Now, by the time he was a free agent, I think he was set on going to LA.
But the Mets had several years before that in which I believe the team
could have convinced him to sign a long-term deal.  It would've taken
money and a lot of coddling, but I'm almost positive it could have been
done one of the weeks that Straw was feeling kindly towards the Mets.
But they didn't even try, leaving me with the definite feeling that
they really didn't want to re-sign Straw.  

Greg
From: bz832@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Wesley R. Kemmerlin)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: SOLUTION TO DH CONTROVERSY?
Date: 17 Dec 1992 22:32:16 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


For about 20 years now, MLB has been split between the two
leagues on the DH. I have a possible compromise for the two
leagues:

The pitcher must be in the batting order, but there can be a DH
for another position player.

This would keep the strategy of pinch-hitting or not for the
pitcher in the game, a major disadvantage of current DH for
anti-DH'ers.

This would also keep a better hitter in the batting order, a
major advantage of current DH for pro-DH'ers.

So what do all of you pro and anti DH'ers think about this???
-- 
WESLEY
From: dkl@cs.arizona.edu (David K. Lowenthal)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Statheads and park effects
Date: 19 Dec 92 21:37:12 GMT
Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson


I have a question for the stat people.  How can you justify this
park effect thing?  In other words, for every park prediction made
on the net, how many are correct?  Doesn't is seem like stretching
it a little to say that a player with a different team will play at the
same level with his new team in a new park?  Are players robots who you 
can pick up and place in a new stadium and watch them do exactly the
same things so that only the change in park matters?

Before last season, several netters and I engaged in a "discussion" of
how Greg Swindell would do with the Reds.  He came from a huge park,
Cleveland, and went to a homer haven, Riverfront.  He posted an upper
3's ERA with Cleveland the previous year.  I was scorned, especially
by Valentine, when I suggested his stats might improve because he was
playing for a better team, even though the park effect would suggest
a downward trend.  Netters predicted a mid 4 ERA for him given the 
park change and his tendency to give up homers.  He ended up with
a mid to high 2's ERA.

Obviously this is only one example.  But all i am asking is can you throw
around park effects like they are gospel?  What percent of your predictions
are correct?  Players can adjust to new surroundings, and stat people
don't consider that.  These kind of things are called "intangibles", 
or *luck* by Ms. Nichols.  For example, can't a pitcher who just pipes
the ball because he pitches in the Astrodome start nibbling the corners
when he gets traded to Riverfront?  Can't a hitter who hits 20 homers
in Oakland take one look at the short Yankee porch and hit fewer homers
because he wants to pull everything (cf. Dave Revering)?

Just Curious,

--dave

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: steph@perseus.cs.uiuc.edu (Dale Stephenson)
Subject: Re: ward to atlant
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 22:42:04 GMT

In <800.2B31753C@gisatl.FIDONET.ORG> deitch@gisatl.FIDONET.ORG (David Deitch) writes:

>Which opens up a good question...

>How many players have started their careers with a team, been traded, then later in their career traded back?

Jim Acker went Toronto->Atlanta->Toronto
In '62, some Met was traded for himself.
-- 
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
From: falcon@cs.mcgill.ca (Scot Hughes)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: All-Time Expo team
Date: 17 Dec 92 04:30:01 GMT
Organization: SOCS - Mcgill University, Montreal, Canada


	Well, with all of these All-time Expo teams being posted, I
decided to submit my own list. When making this list, I considered only
the player's performance with the Expos. As a result, some of the bigger
names in Expos history may be absent. (ie fan favorites who did well
with another team but did very little when in Montreal). Anyway, here we
go.

First Base: Al Oliver       Backup: Fairly
	Not really all that tough a call. In his two years in Montreal,
Scoop hit above 300 both times while providing adequate defense. The
backup was a tougher call, between Fairly, Cromartie and Galaraga.
Fairly hit slightly better and provided adequate D, so he gets the nod.

Second Base: DeShields      Backup: Hunt
	Montreal has never really had a good second baseman. Comparing
the stats, Deshields has already outperformed anyone that the Spos have
had at second. The backup is a close contest between Hunt and Cash. Hunt
gets the nod for sentimental reasons. (anyone with that many HBP
deserves mention :-)

ShortStop: Brooks          Backup: Speier/Owen
	Another poor position. The Expos have been really hurting up the
middle for most of their existance. Brooks was poor defensively,but made
up for it offensively. Quick: What's the difference between Spike Owen
and Chris Speier? I don't know either. Very similar players. Take your
pick.

Third: Wallach/Parrish
	Very similar players. Take one as the main, the other as the
backup. Personally, I'd go with Wallach, but that's just because I never
really saw Parrish play.

Catcher: Carter           Backup: Fitzgerald
	No contest. All in all, Carter remains the only good catcher in
Expos history. Fitzgerald is the best of the rest.

Outfield: Raines, Dawson, Staub  Backup: Valentine, Walker
	All pretty good players. If Walker keeps up his pace, he'll
displace Staub.

Starters: Martinez, Rogers, Perez, Palmer, Smith
	Not a bad rotation. Martinez is the best, closely followed by
Rogers. Perez provided excellent pitching in his years in Montreal
(87-89), as well as being a crowd favorite. When healthy, David Palmer
was one of the best that the Expos had. Arm problems did him in, though.
Smith could be counted on to win 12-15 a year with low walk totals and
an ERA around 3.

Relief: Marshall, Reardon, Burke
	Three excellent relievers round out a good pitching staff.


	Well, that's it. Let me know what you think.

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scot Hughes        | Department of Chemical Engineering | Expos in '93!
falcon@cs.mcgill.ca| McGill University, Montreal, Quebec| {witty saying here}
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: Edward_Lunny@mindlink.bc.ca (Edward Lunny)
Subject: Blue Jays-Gillick
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 03:12:42 GMT

I have been watching this board with interest especially those who are
disenchanted with the moves that have been made in the off-season.
My allegiances are with the teams who provide the most entertainment
regardless of their city or league affiliation.  Next year I will be watching
the following teams since they exemplify my philosophy of baseball.
1. Kansas City- add some pitching ( Cone_) and add some middle infield (
gagne and lind) and you have to be better.
2. Atlanta-  lose no one and add a Cy Young winner and even though Liebrandt
won 15 games, the fans have an improved product to look forward to.
3. Milwaukee-  How can u let this many players go and expect the fans to
stick around?- The owner must have been pre-occupied with acting commissioner
duties.
4. Houston- have to be better- pitching ( Drabek and Swindell)
5.  The Blue Jays-  Gillick is a miracle worker- gets rid of the "jerk"
Gruber and unloads some very potentially expensive clunkers.  ie, Moldonado,
Henke, Key, Gruber,Winfield,-   makes the best deal of the off season ie
Molitor, and ensures that the beleagured pitching staff gets lots of runs
next year. Where else can Jack Morris get 20 wins with an ERA  about 4. I
loved what Winfield did for them last year, but got tired of being the back
end of the double play.

The rich are getting richer ( except for the Yankees) and the poor are
getting poorer.

--

 " Ted "
From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Mattingly discussion, take 2.
Date: 18 Dec 1992 17:34:41 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: gondolin.pubs.stratus.com

In article <1992Dec18.170850.14828@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu>  
akamholz@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Andrew E Kamholz) writes:
> In article <1992Dec17.161922.25289@Princeton.EDU>  
roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:
> >In article <1992Dec17.055227.4101@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu>  
akamholz@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Andrew E Kamholz) writes:
> >
> >Is that fair to all the better first-basemen?  Gold gloves are  
generally
> >awarded by reflex...
> 
> When I said what I did about his defensive abilities, I left it as  
a given
> that he has the best relexes. There have been many times that,  
while watching
> on both Yankee TV and National (ESPN) TV, Kevin Maas missed a ball  
(as in
> dove for it but didn't get it) and the announcers said that  
Mattingly would
> have had it if he had been in the field. There is no first baseman  
with a
> better arm or better range or better mental abilities than Don  
Mattingly.
> 

I think Roger meant they were given by reflex on the part of the
writers, not the players.  Anyway, while Mattingly may or may
not have the best mental abilities, the bit about best range
simply is not true.  Of the three factors you mention, range is the
easiest to measure, based on how many balls that come into his area
does he field. These days, Mattingly has about average range.

--------
Jim Mann            
Stratus Computer   jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com  

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Brave staff greatest in recent history?
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 04:06:24 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.034143.5284@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> nlu@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu) writes:
>ERA-wise:
>
>Cone:		2.22
>Ojeda:		2.88
>Fernandez:	3.00
>Gooden		3.19
>Darling:	3.25
>
>It's close, but I might be tempted to take the Braves staff, particularly
>because Cone started the season in the bullpen (which might partially explain
>his low ERA), and neither Ojeda nor Fernandez pitched the entire season.

I think there's also a significant difference between Fulton County and 
Shea Stadiums...
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
From: kbos@carina.unm.edu (K. Mitchell Bowes)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Red Sox and Padres swap players
Date: 12 Dec 92 01:55:30 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <1992Dec10.191725.7142@nosc.mil> lalor@cod.nosc.mil (Joe Lalor) writes:
>In article <1992Dec10.143512.11597@midway.uchicago.edu> Ted Frank,
>thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu writes:
>>Who did the Padres get for Tony Fernandez?  This might be the the bat
>that
>>tips their offense into competitive range.  Plantier/Sheffield/McGriff
>looks
>>only one leadoff hitter away from exceeding the 1989 Giants'
>Mitchell/Clark/
>>Williams combo.  Of course the Padres just lost Jim Deshaies... 

If I remember correctly, Wally Whitehurst and D. J. Dozier came to the Padres
for Fernandez.  Excuse me, minor league catcher Paul Casanova also went to the
Pads (ah, an heir to the Steve Garvey legacy...)

>
>
>Odds are you are looking at Gwynn/Sheffield/McGriff/Plantier in the
>2-3-4-5 spot.  Problem is more, where will Plantier play?
>

What's the problem with putting Plantier in left? 

Think that McIlvaine could get a 2B for Hurst, now that the Plantier deal is
done for Melendez?  Harold Reynolds would probably be too expensive...


-- 
Kurt Bose (as in Daisy, not Rose) * kbos@carina.unm.edu * Walks: not that sexy.
"Halt!  Based on conclusive dental evidence that truly bites, I arrest you 
 hereby for the murdering of the dead Belzic Tascar.  I am obliged to warn you 
 that my weapons are registered as offensive fronds!!"- R.M.Allen, "Monkey See"
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: dfl@math.wayne.edu (David Frohardt-Lane)
Subject: Re: Blue Jays-Gillick
Organization: Wayne State University Math Department, Detroit
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 01:37:18 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.205514.26316@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca> maynard@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Roger Maynard) writes:
>
>Well if he wins it all one year and then turns around and loses it all the 
>next year while doing the same things then obviously one should look for the 
>problem elsewhere.  

This statement right here shows how stupid your argument is. (Your
argument being: If a team wins, the manager is a good manager, no matter
what).  You can flip that around and say that because the Blue Jays lost
with him managing the same way, he was "obviously" not the reason that
they had won.

--
David Frohardt-Lane   dfl@math.wayne.edu 
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Go Tigers, Lions, Pistons, Red Wings and Wolverines !!!!!!!!!!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++