HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: arrow@netcom.com (Les Arrow)
Subject: Re: Mitchell for Charlton and other trades.
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 00:58:33 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.170529.16421@cs.cornell.edu> tedward@cs.cornell.edu (Edward [Ted] Fischer) writes:

>HUH????  Briley has almost 1500 career PA.  And he's 27.  Sounds fair
>to me!  Actually, he hit quite well in 1989.  He simply hasn't done
>*anything* since then.  I think a .320 OBP is a bit much to expect
>right now.
>

He hit quite well in '89 in almost a full season and hasn't got much of a
chance since. 1500 PA is the total for a full time player over 2 years,
not 4. He's been part-time for 3 years, I'd like to see him given the chance to play full time again. He's good defensively and has real good speed. ed. If he
can up his walk total, he could probably be more than adequate in the leadoff
spot, IMHO.

>Sure, if there is nobody else around, give him a shot to play.  But
>don't make him the leadoff hitter!
>
>>Besides, their other
>>choices are to go with wasting Edgar Martinez in the #1 spot or resigning 
>>Harold Reynolds who doesn't have a much better career OBP and would stifle
>>the play of Bret Boone.
>
>Looks to me like they kinda *have* to get somebody.  Or simply hang it
>up and admit that they have no chance at ever fielding a winning team.
>But at this point, Vizquel looks at least as promising in the leadoff
>spot as Briley does.
>
>So who do they have?
>
>C: Valle		Weak hitter.
>1B: Tino Martinez	Weak slugger, *no* OBP.
>2B: Boone		Showed promise in the minors.  Let him lead off?
>SS: Vizquel		A career year last year.
>3B: Edgar Martinez	Power, average, patience.
>LF: Briley		No power, no average, no patience.
>CF: Griffey		See Edgar.
>RF: Buhner		Power, when healthy.
>DH: O'Brien		Not even as good as Tino.
>
>I might consider a lineup of:
>Boone
>Vizquel
>E. Martinez
>Griffey
>Buhner
>T. Martinez
>O'Brien
>Valle
>Briley
>
>But they *really* need some offense out of 1B/DH.  You can't win games
>when your 1B/DH are mediocre #6/#7 hitters!  Any prospects?
>

They could use a good DH, but that is really the only hole I see. I don'
think Tino Martinez is as mediocre as you do. I think he's going to be
a helluva major leaguer. If they can sign a decent hitter, Chili Davis maybe,
they should be able to quite competitive. I site Chili Davis because he's
probably one of the free agents they can afford.

--Les

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: myles@leland.Stanford.EDU (Myles Sussman)
Subject: Large Marge (was Re: Mitchell for Charlton and other trades.)
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 17:29:43 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.160115.17528@meaddata.com> dougr@meaddata.com (Doug Ritter) writes:
>Marge is a businesswoman.  She isn't running the Reds as a hobby, like most of
>the other owners.  She has proven that she's willing to pay out the big-bucks
>to keep the players that are essential.  Her big beef with player salaries is
>paying guys a million dollars a year to hit .220 - can you *really* argue with
>that????

   I am not too happy that Marge has been, at times, accused of being
cheap with the scouts and player development people.  And the dog poop
on the field is annoying.  And that bit about the troops in the "Far
East" was embarrassing.  But I think the one thing you failed to
mention (that many fans amazingly forget) is that the Reds have been,
for the past few years, the cheapest day at the ballpark for a family!
It's still expensive in Cincinnati, but it's cheaper than most of the
other cities.  And Marge should get some credit for that.  The Reds
won a World Series while charging their fans the least.

   By the way, I just read that the Braves will raise their ticket
prices for the third consecutive year, and cut out most of their
packages.  All of a sudden they get a few fans and now they are really
going to take advantage of them.

Myles Sussman
Stanford U
From: maceache@fox.nstn.ns.ca (Tim Maceachern)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Jays/Angels trade rumor - 3 for Abott
Summary: Rumor of trade between Jays and Angels
Keywords: jays, angels, trade, abbott, abott
Date: 17 Nov 92 17:22:12 GMT
Organization: NSTN Network Operations Centre, Nova Scotia, Canada

In today's Toronto Globe and Mail the rumor is that the Jays have
arrived at a trade with the Angels for Jim Abbott.   The Jays will
give up:
    Todd Stottlemeyer
    Randy Knorr
    Domingo Martinez

I love this deal, but I'm a Jays fan.  Can the Angels, or anybody else,
possibly spare a pitcher as good as Abbott?

Tim MacEachern
Newsgroups: rn,rec.sport.baseball
From: s_hallee@oz.plymouth.edu (garth)
Subject: Chris Jones?
Reply-To: s_hallee@oz.plymouth.edu (garth)
Organization: Plymouth State College - Plymouth, N.H.
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 92 23:50:14 GMT

Does anyone know if the Chris Jones that the Rockies picked up
about a week ago is the same Chris Jones that played for Houston last
year or are there 2 of them. Any info would be appreciated! Thanks in
advance. 
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: kbanaian@bernard.pitzer.claremont.edu (King Banaian)
Subject: Re: Cy of Relief (Eck)
Organization: Pitzer College
Distribution: world,local
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 19:59:08 GMT

In article  (Charles M Kozierok) Re: Cy of Relief (Eck) writes
>
>another good idea would be an award specifically for non-pitchers like
>the cy young is for pitchers. that way we could avoid the incessant
>arguments about whether or not a pitcher should win the MVP. you could
>have an award (or awards) for best pitcher, one (or more?) for best
>hitter, and finally, MVP, which could truly be the "most valuable"
>player, either pitcher or not.
>
>i wonder why there is no batting equivalent of the cy young...

Ford Frick started the Cy Young for exactly that reason:  pitchers were 
badly underrepresented in the MVP voting.  Eckert made it a by-league award 
in 1967.  Pitchers won the award 10 times in the AL 1931-90 and 9 in the NL, 
including Don Newcombe winning MVP and the first Cy in 1956.  The winners 
of MVP since Cy were Koufax ('63), Gibson ('68), McLain ('68), Blue ('72), 
Fingers ('81), Hernandez ('84), Clemens ('86).

The batting equivalent of Cy was intended by Frick to be MVP.

Sparky

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: dave@bradley.bradley.edu (David Vessell)
Subject: Re: Tampa Bay and the Giants
Organization: Bradley University
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 04:07:51 GMT

In <74373@apple.apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Eeyore's Evil Twin) writes:

>No problem, Todd. I like to wax rhetoric. But the reality is that the
>hardcore fans would swim to the Farallons to see a ballgame, but the
>difference between a team that draws a mediocre 1.3 million and one that
>draws a decent 1.8 million ain't chickenfeed, 

?!?  1.3 million?  Is that true?

Geez, the Cardinals finish fourth and draw 3 million, and the whole St.
Louis metro area is only 2.4 million people.

I guess that goes to show how irrelevant market size is....

-- 
 davE.  Making the world safe for intelligent dance music.  dave@bradley.edu.
######### David L. Vessell -- Bradley University Computing Services #########
From: vanburg@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: White leadoff; Carter mvp
Date: 23 Nov 92 10:39:19 -0400
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <By1CyD.8Dx@zoo.toronto.edu>, rising@zoo.toronto.edu (Jim Rising) writes:
> I wonder if there is a high correlation between people
> who think that White is a good lead-off hitter and that
> Carter was the Jays' mvp last year.  You could emale me
> answers to 2 questions, (1) Is Devon White a good leadoff
> hitter (yes or no; no qualifiers), and (2) Was Joe Carter
> the Jays' mvp in 1992 (yes or no).  I'll post results.
> [Why am I getting myself into this?  A guess postseason
> baseball withdrawl.]
> -- 
> Name:     Jim Rising
> Mail:     Dept. Zoology, Univ. Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada    M5S 1A1
> UUCP:     uunet!attcan!utzoo!rising 
> BITNET:   rising@zoo.utoronto.ca

Devo may not be the ideal lead-off hitter, too many Ks, but he does get the 
job done better than most (ie Coleman). Carter is very important to the 
Jays but Robby was most likely the team's MVP. Also Joe should be 
batting fifth with Olerud third and Winfield forth.

Mike Crosby,Dal

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 01:41:59 -0500 
From: Amit Likhyani <al1x+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Comments on Round 1 of the Expansion Draft

Excerpts from netnews.rec.sport.baseball: 17-Nov-92 Comments on Round 1
of the .. by Jason Lee@zeus.calpoly.e 
> and that the ball carries well in Denver's altitude.  I hope that Cole can
> develop into the outstanding leadoff hitter that he has the potential to
> become.

Cole is 26.  That potential is becoming what you see is what you get.  A
very good pick for the Rockies, especially if he plays center.  He looks
a lot like Mark Clayton(Dolphins wide receiver) for whatever that is
worth.  He is a usable player.  I think outstanding leadoff hitter is
going a little too far.
From: RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Hot Stove Quotes
Date: 22 Nov 92 19:57:51 GMT

during a yankee broadcast, tom seaver was playing with the franklin
electronic baseball encyclopedia, and said to phil rizzuto, "you
scored a HUNDRED AND TWENTY-FIVE RUNS in 1950, scooter!"

to which phil responds, "oh, my little legs were tired that year!"

bob vesterman.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: sgs@stein.u.washington.edu (Steven Smith)
Subject: Re: NL MVP voting oddities
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 00:01:10 GMT

In article <steph.722300266@perseus.cs.uiuc.edu> steph@perseus.cs.uiuc.edu (Dale Stephenson) writes:
>You're just not looking at the positive side of things.  From the AL MVP
>contest, here's some evidence that mediots aren't as brain dead as they
>seem:
>
>Frank Thomas (8th) finished ahead of Cecil Fielder (9th) 108-83.
>
>Egdar Martinez (12th) got more votes than Jack Morris (13th) 29-18.
>
>:-> for the humor impaired.

I don't know if I'm humor-impaired or not, but I certainly can't see Fielder
being in the top 10 and Martinez out of it as evidence that the voters'
EEGs have started registering anything but flat lines. All in all, I'd say
this year's AL vote was one of the worst of the last few. Puckett and
Carter 2-3?? Come on!

--Steve
-- 
 sgs@u.washington.edu             * "The boys with cars want motorcycles
 Steve Smith                      *  and the boys with motorcycles want
 University of Washington HR-20   *  cars!"
 Seattle, WA 98195                *    --D. Wiggin-"Philosophy of the World"	
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: kbanaian@bernard.pitzer.claremont.edu (King Banaian)
Subject: Re: Red Sox and the draft
Organization: Pitzer College
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 19:11:31 GMT

In article <9211181244.AA03468@topaz.cm.cf.ac.uk> G.R.Price@cm.cf.ac.uk (G R Price) writes:
>Could any Red Sox fans out there please inform me who the Red Sox
>protected in the draft, if this is known, and give me opinions on the loss of 
>Wedge and Reed.
>
Well, I hoped someone would ask about this.  There is a lot of thought that 
we've seen the best of Reed already.  He's turned 30, he lost 15 doubles 
last season, turning his slug to slush, and commits an above average number 
of errors (though IMHO he has above-average range, a fact often 
overlooked).  I thought the bubble guy was Greenwell, who's a year younger.  
I'd have chosen to protect Reed over Greenwell, since Reed had been a 35-40 
doubles hitter and a good #2 hitter until this year's slump.  But he is in 
the last year of his contract, and with the management situation as it was, 
I suspect the cheapskates in the front office pressured Gorman to leave 
money players off (thus you don't protect Burks;  admittedly that fails to 
explain Greenwell, but perhaps they thought no one would be crazy enough to 
take him.)  The point is debatable, but I don't begrudge the loss of Reed.

My bacon is fried about Wedge, however.  Exactly who was protected after 
Reed's selection?  (Boston readers, send mail!)  Here we have a rookie, age 
25, who has 5 dingdongs in 68 ABs.  He can hit, and *was* a good defensive 
catcher in the minors.  He was injured this year and relegated to DH.  While 
I agree that Pena is the #1 catcher still (oh, I know I'll get hammered for 
this!), don't you think the #20 guy on the team might be the back-up catcher 
who hits .240-.250 with 6-8 HRs in 240ABs?  It's not like there was a lot of 
talent left to protect in the minors!?  Mark me down:  before the season 
ends, the Rockies are going to start this guy, while Red Sox fans will have 
to watch Marzano's sorry ass for another season.

Sparky Banaian
Don't stopping fretting about tomorrow.	Does Hillary get to take a pledge?

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: dansmith@mcopn2.dseg.ti.com (Dan Smith)
Subject: Re: Marlins/Rockies blow Atlanta 2nd pick
Reply-To: dansmith@mcopn2.dseg.ti.com
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc.
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 16:07:37 GMT

In article 17110177@hpkslx.mayfield.HP.COM, oz@hpkslx.mayfield.HP.COM (Kent Ostby) writes:
>During the second round of the expansion draft, the Rockies choose Vinny
>Castilla and this is stupid.
>
>At that point in time, there were one of the four following people:
>Pete Smith, Kent Mercker, Tony Tarasco, and Donnie Elliot.  
>
>There is no way on earth that Castilla is a better prospect than ALL four of
>the above.
>
>A blow a blow a blow a blow.
>
>Oz
>



 Ahhh, yes. Someone else who thinks as I do. Like I said earlier,(in post
 Keith Mitchell???) the expansion teams blew their 2nd Braves pick because someone  better than Castilla simply had to be available. BTW Oz, you left Keith Mitchell off   your list. He probably was available, and if he wasn't, Elliot, Tarasco or Ramon Caraballo was available.

 Expansion teams blew Braves 2nd pick in a big way. But, as a Braves fan, I can live
 with that.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: tedward@cs.cornell.edu (Edward [Ted] Fischer)
Subject: Re: Trade Clemens?
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 08:54:10 GMT

In article <By14H4.M9J@math.uwaterloo.ca> fass@math.uwaterloo.ca (The FASS Theatre Company) writes:
>
>Is trading Clemens a bad idea?  Currently, Clemens is arguably the 
>best pitcher in baseball and his market value would be incredibly high.

No, Clemens is *not* arguably the best pitcher in baseball.  He is
arguably the best pitcher *ever*.  He is *unarguably* the best pitcher
currently in baseball.  Year in and year out, he is up there at the
top, despite playing in a hitters ballpark with no bullpen and no
offensive support.

>From the performace of the Sox this year, and rumblings from various 
>disgruntled Red Sox fans, I'm guessing they could use an infusion of youth.

Which is simply wrong.  They *have* practically all the youth hanging
around that they need.  The could use an infusion of brains in their
management.  The talent on the field can take care of itself (though
it would help if they stopped punting players for no particular
reason).  They could also use some quality coaches at the major league
level.

>I'm not sure of the Rocket's age but he has been around for a while and
>will most likely decline in 3 or so years (then again he could be another
>Ryan).   The Sox need to rebuild and this would be a viable way to do
>it.

Sure, I'd be willing to trade Clemens.  Let's start with the Viola
deal.  Frank Viola brought a solid pitcher (Aguilera), a quality young
arm with potential (Tapani), and a highly-touted flamethrower (West).
Plus a couple of other bodies.  Clemens is worth that *plus* a young
power-hitting outfielder.

Gonzalez plus Rodriguez plus a top pitching prospect might do it.
Anything less?  Ridiculous!  And if you think about it, what team has
that kind of talent to trade away?  Basically it would demand the
entire output of a team's farm system for two full years to buy
Clemens.  And if a team trades away *that* much young talent, it will
suffer a horrible death.  Look at what has happened to the Mets.

-Valentine
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: arrow@netcom.com (Les Arrow)
Subject: Re: Expansion: Red Sox blow it
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 10:58:43 GMT

In article <wall-181192165750@elvis.swarthmore.edu> wall@cc.swarthmore.edu (Swarthmore College Computing Center) writes:
>What I want to know, fellow Red Sox sufferers, is who they protected in
>place of Eric Wedge. Reed, much as I will miss him, I don't mind losing
>since we were going to lose him anyway. But what exactly possessed sweet
>Lou to let Wedge go?
>

I had my suspisions about this after the two-year signing of Tony Pena.
For the life of me, I can not understand Lou Gorman. My only guess is that
because of all of Wedge's surgeries, they felt he would never make an
adequate catcher. Still, who did they have that Wedge deserve to be unprotected'
into the 3rd round.

Ok, so what next? Trade Clemens?

--Les

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: dansmith@mcopn2.dseg.ti.com (Dan Smith)
Subject: Re: The first pick -- David Nied
Reply-To: dansmith@mcopn2.dseg.ti.com
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc.
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 19:02:13 GMT

In article 22354@Princeton.EDU, niepornt@dial.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>In article <jhopkins.177.722029634@cbacc.cba.uga.edu> jhopkins@cbacc.cba.uga.edu (John Hopkins) writes:
>
>>It is 2:30 pm in the Eastern time zone, and the Colorado Rockies just
>>took David Nied in the expansion draft from the Atlanta Braves.  What
>>this means is this:  JOHN SCHUERHOLTZ IS TOO FUCKING STUPID TO LIVE!!!!

(some stuff deleted)


>>As we all know now, the Braves elected to cover the following folks:
>
>>Glavine >Smoltz >Avery >Wohlers
>>Stanton >Lopez >Klesko >Hunter
>>Blauser >Pendleton >Gant >Sanders
>>Nixon >Nieves >Justice
>
>>Five outfielder on this list!  STUPID, STUPID, STUPID!!!!  This has
>>really steamed my clams!!  I hope David Nied wins Rookie of the Year
>>and the fucking Cy Young Award.  It would serve the Braves right!!
>
>Not that I want to defend the Braves much, because I don't, because I
>think anyone who would protect Otis Nixon for any reason whatsoever
>should be kicked in the head, but I don't think you have any business
>complaining.
>
>Protecting Lemke and Belliard?  Especially Belliard?
>
>Why the *^&% would you protect a 31 year old shortstop who can't hit
>when you have one good shortstop now -- Blauser -- and another one just
>a year or so away -- Jones, of course?
>
>And Lemke, who can't hit either?
>
>Protecting five outfielders isn't a bad idea -- you can *trade* one of
>them if you have to.  Protecting *bad* players is a bad idea.
>
>-- 
>David M. Nieporent   | Mike Mussina 1993 AL Cy Young Winner
>niepornt@phoenix.    |------------------------------------ 
>   princeton.edu     | "I still believe in a place called Hope."
>Clinton/Gore '92.  Don't stop thinking about tomorrow.

I have to agree with David here. The original poster's list is absurd. The
Braves did a much better job protecting than that guy ever would have.
(Belliard and Lemke, oh please!)

Also, as an aside, the criticism of John Scherholtz is totally unjustified.
The list he created was superb. I'm talking about the list HE created. His
list included David Nied. However, TED TURNER at the last minute demanded
that Deion Sanders be protected so Nied was swapped for him.

Whether Sanders should have been swapped with Nixon or Hunter is a different
issue and should have been considered by Scherholtz. However, remember that
Scherholtz had Nied on his list originally and Turner should accept a lot of
the blame here. Also, please remember that Scherholtz helped turn the Braves
around in the first place and if it weren't for him, some of the talent in 
question wouldn't be in Atlanta in the first place.
From: jplee@zeus.calpoly.edu (Jason Lee)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: DH: PRO or CON
Date: 17 Nov 92 04:46:37 GMT
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

In article <1992Nov14.032829.17844@netcom.com> arrow@netcom.com (Les Arrow) writes:
>In article <3480025@hplvec.LVLD.HP.COM> guy@hplvec.LVLD.HP.COM (Guy Sitler) writes:
>>
>>	I would like to hear some PROS and CONS of the American League
>>DH rule.  Support your view with facts and statistics.  Also state your
>>sources.
>
>I like it. 100% of the people sitting in this chair like it. My source is
>me.
>
>I also like the fact that there's no DH in the National League. Each league
>has its own strategies, which make it unique and exciting. To be honest,
>though, I wouldn't be phazed one bit if they went all DH or no DH. I
>watch both  National League and American League Games.

I think that is a really good way to look at this.  Unfortunately, I cannot
share that position.  Until my dying day, I will be wholeheartedly against
the Designated Hitter Rule.  As far as Mr. Sitler wanting statistical
support to the argument, I really have none.  All I can really say in truth
is that I prefer the National League style of play, in which the pitchers
bat.  I can't back up my position.

The DH isn't as bad as I sometimes think it is.  But I guarantee that if I
could have one wish in life, it would be to eliminate the DH (Maybe George
Steinbrenner instead, I'll have to think about it).

-- 
Jason Lee
email:  jplee@poseidon.calpoly.edu
GO ROCKIES 1993
Don Baylor for President!!!
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: He's baaaaaaack...
Date: 16 Nov 92 14:46:02 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <15NOV199213565362@pierre.mit.edu> kettler@pierre.mit.edu (KETTLER, THOMAS R.) writes:
>In article <13NOV199215541235@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu>, yankees@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu (Kenneth M Gelfa writes...

>>	For those of you who haven't heard, Steve Howe was today reinstated
>>by arbitrator George Nicoleau.  Nicoleau said that Howe has a hyperactive
>>condition brought on by years of untreated drug use and deserves one more
>>chance.  This follows a pattern of baseball players (Ferguson Jenkins, 
>>Gil Reyes) having their sentences overturned by arbitration.  It seems
>>what baseball needs now is a definitive policy like the NBA has.

>>	Howe is now a free agent and may sign with any teams he wants.

>I have three things to say about this.First, it is Nicolau, not Nicoleau. Next
>this is a big joke since although I feel that people should be given a second 
>chance, this jerk hasn't had just two chances but seven. Now he gets an eighth 
>chanced just because he can throw a baseball faster than 80 mph. What if it 
>happens again, will he be given another one? What does this say to youngsters 
>who are put in jail for selling the junk? Did anyone think of this?Finally, if

That putting them in jail is ridiculous?

>the jerk must be given another chance, then I have an idea. Why doesn't 
>baseball require that all of his salary go to drug prevention and treatment? 
>Here is the necessary d::-) since I know that won't happen.

I might as well weigh in with my $2.54.  I think the *reasoning* behind
Nicolau's decision was idiotic, but I agree with the decision.  I don't
think baseball needs to get involved in politics, and I think that the
Steve Howe case just *illustrates* why MLB's policy is silly.  Is he
having trouble on the field?  No, obviously not.  He's an excellent
pitcher.  So why suspend him?

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Mike Mussina 1993 AL Cy Young Winner
niepornt@phoenix.    |------------------------------------ 
   princeton.edu     | "I still believe in a place called Hope."
Clinton/Gore '92.  Don't stop thinking about tomorrow.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball,sci.math