HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: probal@brushfire.rutgers.edu (Probal Kumar Bhattacharjya)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.tennis
Subject: Re: Prediction
Date: 24 Jan 93 01:33:57 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

Sorry friend ... by now you must have found out that Wheaton lost to Kelly
Jones in third round. Too bad ... I liked him in W91 - he was quite good 
against Becker in the semis. Hope he plays better this year ... as an
aside what happened to his CONNECTION with Mary Joe ???
	--P.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.tennis
From: dyko@mundil.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Darren Yiu Ming KO)
Subject: completed day8 results
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 14:32:45 GMT


 M Seles (Yug) d N Tauziat (Fr) 6-2 6-0
 G Forget (Fr) d K Jones (US) 6-3 7-6 7-6
 S Edberg (Swe) d A Boetsch (Fr) 6-2 6-3 6-2
 J Halard (Fr) d C Martinez (Spn) 6-4 6-3
 P Korda (Czh) d C Garner (US) 
 C Bergstrom (Swe) d W Ferreira (SA) in 4 sets
 B Steven (NZ) d R Fromberg (Aust) 7-6 6-7 6-7 6-2 8-6

Newsgroups: rec.sport.tennis
From: dyko@mundil.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Darren Yiu Ming KO)
Subject: day5 & day6 results
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 02:14:11 GMT

   Day5:

     K Carlsen (Den) d T Woodbridge (Aust) 7-5 5-7 6-4 6-4

   Day6:

     S Graf (Ger) d C Porwik (Ger) 6-1 retired hurt (ankle)
     A Boetsch (Fr) d A Volkov (Russia) 6-4 6-4 6-2
     B Steven (NZ) leading A Olhovskiy (Russia) 6-3 7-5
     S Edberg (Swe) leading A Mansdorf (Isr) 6-3
Newsgroups: rec.sport.tennis
Subject: Re: Aussie Open: Ivanisevic Out!
From: CSC9242663X@LUST.LATROBE.EDU.AU (Ilze..)
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 11:23:28 GMT
Organization: Nah...
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.24

In <1jfjedINNnev@uniwa.uwa.edu.au> blip@tartarus.uwa.edu.au writes:

> if you didn't know already!
> 
> 
> Bryan.

I heard on the news that Ivanisevic had stress fractures in his foot, and
has to rest it for six weeks..

Ilze...


Newsgroups: rec.sport.tennis
From: shun@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (shun.cheung)
Subject: AO Women's Singles Draw, Updated to final 8 (SPOILERS)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 03:29:12 GMT


                   1993 Australian Open draw, women's singles


               Seles (1) --------+    Seles
                                 |--------+
            Tauziat (13) --------+        |
                                          |--------+
                 Halard  --------+        |        |
                                 |--------+        |
            Martinez (6) --------+   Halard        |
                                                   |--------+
            Sabatini (3) --------+ Sabatini        |        |
                                 |--------+        |        |
                 Provis  --------+        |        |        |
                                          |--------+        |
             Pierce (10) --------+        |                 |
                                 |--------+                 |
           G. Fernandez  --------+   Pierce                 |
                                                            +--------> Champion
      M.J. Fernandez (5) --------+Fernandez                 |
                                 |--------+                 |
   Maleeva-Fragniere (9) --------+        |                 |
                                          |--------+        |
              Huber (11) --------+        |        |        |
                                 |--------+        |        |
     Sanchez Vicario (4) --------+Sanchez Vicario  |        |
                                                   |--------+
            Capriati (7) --------+ Capriati        |
                                 |--------+        |
         K. Maleeva (14) --------+        |        |
                                          |--------+
         M. Maleeva (15) --------+        |
                                 |--------+
                Graf (2) --------+     Graf


All three Maleeva sisters reach the round of 16, but none of them
gets to the quarter final.
-- 
-- Shun Cheung,    electronic: shun.cheung@att.com    voice: (908) 615-5135
     AT&T, 480 Red Hill Road, Middletown, NJ,  07748  USA
Newsgroups: rec.sport.tennis
From: shun@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (shun.cheung)
Subject: Re: Completed Women's SF Results
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 09:42:19 GMT

In article <9302818.25780@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> dyko@mundil.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Darren Yiu Ming KO) writes:
>
>   Women's Semi-final results:
>
>   M Seles (Yug) d G Sabatini (Arg) 6-1 6-2
>   S Graf (Ger) d A Sanchez-Vicario (Spn) 7-5 6-4
>
>   So, for the umpteenth time, the top two women players are set to
>   slug it out in the final (yawn!). With a scoreline of 6-1 6-2 against
>   the Argentine, the top seed seems to be operating at full throttle.
>   The QF match against the French girl Pierce must have taken a lot 
>   out of the number three seed, for she is slow and sluggish against
>   the energetic Seles. Her service were all broken in the first set and
>   she only troubled the scoreboard late in the set by breaking Seles'
>   serve.

Actually, it is not that much of a yawn. Seles and Graf don't play
each other very often in these days (only twice in 1992). Part of
the reason is that the WTA trys to spreat them out into different
tournaments to draw the crowd, and partly because Graf has not been
consistently making it to the final of the major events to meet Seles.
It would be very interesting to see them play each other on a "neutral"
surface when both of them are playing very well.

I feel sorry for Sabatini fans. Gaby indeed has difficulty playing
consecutive tough matches and couldn't at least put up with a fight.
She has plenty of athletic talent but simply doesn't have the mental
toughness to win in a strong field. It makes you wonder when she is
going to pick up her second career Grand Slam (singles) title?
-- 
-- Shun Cheung,    electronic: shun.cheung@att.com    voice: (908) 615-5135
     AT&T, 480 Red Hill Road, Middletown, NJ,  07748  USA
Newsgroups: rec.sport.tennis
From: 09143@ravel.udel.edu (Nemo)
Subject: Monica's serve at the AO..
Summary: Is it really as fast as they say...?
Originator: 09143@bach.udel.edu
Organization: ChE, University of Delaware
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 03:39:31 GMT

About the 'fast' serve she has developed recently, it was nowhere  in
evidence in the first AO match telecast here (USA). Her first serve seemed
to average in the 120's (from observation of the readout whenever it came
up in a frame). In contrast, Steffi's first serves were at least in
the 140's and most often in the 150's. To paraphrase somebody from an
unrelated thread on r.s.t. 'One data point does not a trend make...'
Comments?

Cheers!
Vikram
ps: For those of you who saw the Pierce-Sabatini match, did anybody notice
Mary hiking up her skirt every so often? Tell me she wasn't adjusting her
underwear... :-)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: Greg Ridsdale <greg_ridsdale@ausqm1.sps.mot.com>
Subject: Change the game?
Organization: Motorola
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.0
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 21:59:55 GMT

I recently read that Major League Baseball had sent out a questionnaire
to (some to season ticket holders, some to general public) asking for
opinions on some changes (GASP!) in the sport.  Among the changes were:
Inter-league play; No DH in either league; DH in both leagues;
Realignment of existing divisions, 3 divisions per league, wildcard teams
in the playoffs.  I would also be interested in opinions on these topics.
 Here are a few of mine.

I am in favor of either no DH or both leagues using the DH.  The current
system is awkward for both teams in the Series and the All star game.  

I do not see the point of inter-league play.  I like the current system
where all teams of the same league play almost the same schedule.  It
makes their win loss record a more valuable comparison.  

When it comes to making changes in the rules, schedule and playoff
structure, baseball has been  very conservative in the past. 
Consequently they have maintained a continuity through the years that
other sports cannot boast of.  Don't change the rules (other than the DH
which is inconsistent as it is) and don't change the number of regular
season games.  the playoff structure, however,  should be fair game. 
Just don't get too wild.  No wildcards please.
From: bz832@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Wesley R. Kemmerlin)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Change the game?
Date: 26 Jan 1993 15:09:48 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


Greg Ridsdale <greg_ridsdale@ausqml.sps.mot.com> writes:

>I am in favor of either no DH or both leagues using the DH. The
>current system is awkward for both leagues in the Series and the
>All star game.

(stuff deleted)

I personally prefer having no DH. The biggest disadvantage of the
DH is it takes away the strategy of pinch-hitting for the pitcher.

It is the bottom of the seventh and your team is behind 3-2. The
pitcher who has been pitching great after giving up 3 runs in the
first is leading off. Does the manager pinch-hit for the pitcher
to have a better chance to get more runs or does he stick with
the pitcher. This decision is ELIMINATED with the DH and also I
think it eliminates a big part of the game.

The obvious advantage of the DH is that it generates more offense,
but I would not sacrifice it for the elimination of strategy.

I have a solution to this problem:

The pitcher has to bat, but there can be a DH for another position
player.

This solution would keep the strategy in the game while adding more
offense. What do all of you pro and anti DHers think about this
solution?
-- 
WESLEY
From: clgs11@vaxa.strath.ac.uk
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: GM Nicknames (was Re: Baines to Baltimore?)
Date: 21 Jan 93 12:37:10 GMT
Organization: Strathclyde University VAX Cluster

In article <1993Jan20.113222@IASTATE.EDU>, tloughin@IASTATE.EDU (Thomas M Loughin) writes:
> In article <AfLLb6z0BwxI4YejMY@transarc.com>, David_Stephenson@transarc.com
> writes:
>> 
>> genetic+@pitt.edu (Dr. Dave) writes:
>> > Thus spake hbrooks@uiatma.atmos.uiuc.edu (Harold_Brooks):
>> > >
>> > >Gormanocy!?!?!?  What a wonderful word.  And I was worried that our
> language
>> > >might be going stale.  For those netters in need of an adjective to
> describe
>> > >their favorite (?) GM's performance, I respectfully submit Maxvillian.
>> > 
>> > Don't you mean "Maxvillainous"?  Or perhaps just "Maxvile"?
>> > 
>> 
>> Ooooo, I like this!  We in Pittsburgh can attest to being Simonized by
>> the latest Bucco signings!
>> 
> 
> Are Phillies Phans being LEEched of their chances of fielding a good team?  
> 
> Maybe they'd rather Duquette out with the Expos up north...
> 
> -Tom.


Did the Blue Jays roster get a real good " Gillicking" in the off season ????

Tony Cummins
Strathclyde Uni.
Glasgow
Scotland.
From: genetic+@pitt.edu (David M. Tate)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Cecil signs :-( :-( :-(
Date: 26 Jan 93 13:56:54 GMT
Organization: Department of Industrial Engineering

Rather than replying point by point to all nine of the people who think I'm
off my rocker, let me back and fill a bit to see if I can't explain where I
think this argument is coming from.

First of all, I'm going to ditch the word "value", because it's clear to me
that everyone in this discussion is so firmly tied to the notion that "value"
must always mean "replacement value" that there's no point fighting it.

What I want to do is to explain wins.  I want to point to a team and say 
"They won 87 games; what were the individual contributions to that total?"
Now, since winning is BY DEFINITION relative to your opponents' actual
performance, and not to some hypothetical replacement level, it seems only
reasonable to use your opponents' actual performance as the yardstick by
which to measure where your wins came from.  That's why I advocate the use
of league averages (or, actually, the average of everyone in the league but
you) as the correct baseline for this sort of analysis.  It's a retrospective
look (as Bob Davis correctly pointed out) at what happened in the past; not
an attempt to gauge how hard or expensive or whatever it would be to replace
the performance of a given player.

So, for example, the answer to "How can you say that a 12-12 pitcher with
200 innings is 'worthless'" is (a) that's an above-average performance, I'll
bet; (b) not 'worthless' but 'win-neutral', which is different, and (c)
because the ability to pitch lots of innings has prospective value (as a 
hedge against having to use a worse pitcher), but no *retrospective* value
beyond the quality of those innings.

Is this more clear?

Dave

-- 
       David Tate        |"Something there is that doesn't love a wall,
 dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu | That sends the screaming liner over it 
 Prof. of Story Problems | And spills the bleacher-dwellers from their seats."
 Member ORSA, TIMS, SABR |  	"Fenway Wall", Robert Frost
From: snichols@adobe.com (Sherri Nichols)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Morgan vs Sandberg
Date: 27 Jan 93 17:37:39 GMT
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated

In article <27JAN93.16115682@vax.clarku.edu> hhenderson@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>Jim Mann wrote:
>
>>While I think race sometimes enters into it, I don't think this
>>is prevelant as several people have implied.  I think
>>"telegenic" IS a bigger part of it, but this is NOT limited to
>>white players.  Look at Kirby Puckett.
>
>And Barry Bonds.  He's about as telegenic as you can get.

But not very popular, because he doesn't like mediots.

Players who are both telegenic and like mediots (or at least pretend to
like mediots) are more likely to be overrated. 

Sherri Nichols
snichols@adobe.com
Date: Thursday, 21 Jan 1993 18:13:59 EST
From: <RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Hall of Fame voting (read - Disgusted)
 <93018.181126RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu> <2270@blue.cis.pitt.edu>

uh, the hof has a zillion pitchers, or at least 50 or 60.  the 25th best
pitcher of all time clearly deserves to be in the hof.

bob vesterman.

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: franjion@spot.Colorado.EDU (John Franjione)
Subject: Bo Jackson/CWS Hip season ticket plan
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 22:31:37 GMT

I get WGN out here in Boulder.  The White Sox are promoting something
they're calling the "Hip Season Ticket Plan".  As part of the ad, they
feature Bo Jackson lying on his side.  There is some overlaid animated
gizmo on Bo's hip (Bo has an artificial hip, get it?)

Anyway, on the Sunday morning ESPN Sportscenter, they showed some
excerpt from Bo's recent press conference.  They had been talking
about the "Hip Season Ticket Plan" TV ad, when Bo said something like,

	"I wonder what kind of advertising campaign the White Sox
	 would have used if I'd had prostate surgery?"

I was on the floor.  Robin Roberts blushed.

John Franjione
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: snichols@adobe.com (Sherri Nichols)
Subject: Re: Phillies/Cards Trade Rumor
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:27:25 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.090003@IASTATE.EDU> tloughin@IASTATE.EDU (Thomas M Loughin) writes:
>Don't they have about ten of them stacked up in their minors?  I'm thinking of 
>Wilson, Royer, Woodson (all of whom were picked by one guy in our league 
>this year :-}).  Maybe they're just not any good, in which case they should 
>do what the Mets do:  pick one, hype the hell out of him, and trade him for 
>more than he's worth (or at least try...).  

Tracy Woodson is 30 years old and was a Dodger reject at third (in the days
of Jeff Hamilton and co).  Craig Wilson is a 28 year old utility infielder
with the bat to match.  Stan Royer is the only interesting one of the
bunch; he's 25 years old, and has hit for some power in the minors, though
he doesn't walk much.  The Cardinals may be frightened off by his high
error totals in the minors (though his assist totals are also quite high).

Sherri Nichols
snichols@adobe.com



Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Hall of Fame voting (read - Disgusted)
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 15:17:02 GMT

In article <93021.181359RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu> <RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu> writes:
>uh, the hof has a zillion pitchers, or at least 50 or 60.  the 25th best
>pitcher of all time clearly deserves to be in the hof.

YO!

NOBODY has disputed that.  NOBODY. 

The ONLY thing any of us addressed wrt all-time players and Nolan Ryan
was his belonging in a list of the all-time top 25 PLAYERS.  

That is, the all-time first  team.  Or the all-time second team.

I *started out* by saying that Ryan deserved to be in the Hall.  My
point was that some of the common reasons given for why he's supposedly
one of the top few -- FEW, not 50 or 60 -- pitchers are specious,
because they're not directly related to winning.  

Is that better?

Roger
From: genetic+@pitt.edu (David M. Tate)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: YANKEE REFLECTIONS ANYONE???
Date: 27 Jan 93 18:07:01 GMT
Organization: Department of Industrial Engineering

kasper@sscvx1.ssc.gov said:
>In article <2497@blue.cis.pitt.edu>, genetic+@pitt.edu (David M. Tate) writes: 
>> Just a nit:  Don Mattingly certainly _is_ an impatient hitter by my
>> standards.  I imagine that at least Gary Huckabay has similar standards,
>> and perhaps a few more netters...
>
>This seems to be a recurrent theme.  It is true that Mattingly walks
>infrequently, but this could be attributed to the fact that he almost always
>makes contact and puts the ball in play rather than to impatience.  It is
>difficult to walk a lot if you rarely swing and miss.  

Others have commented on this, but I'll add my $.02 anyway, since I haven't
seen anyone make my particular argument(s) yet.

First of all, I claim that it is *easier* to walk a lot if you rarely swing
and miss.  Other people have pointed to Wade Boggs as a counterexample to the
idea that contact hitters walk less; I'll go further and say that Boggs is
the normal case, while Mattingly and Puckett are abnormal.

It comes down to a comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of not
swinging at a particular pitch.  The advantages are (1) you can't get a hit
unless you swing at *something*, and (2) it might be called a strike even if
you don't swing.  The disadvantages are (3) it might not be the most hittable
pitch you're going to get during this PA, (4) you might miss it anyway, and
(5) you can't draw a swinging walk.  Now, (1) and (2) apply equally to all
players.  Similarly, (3) and (5) apply to all players.  However, (4) does
not apply equally to all players.  In particular, players who make good 
contact run less risk of swinging and missing, and thus have a stronger 
incentive to be selective, since they don't give away as much by waiting.

The fact that Mattingly almost always puts the ball into play means that he
runs less risk of striking out if he waits for his pitch.  By choosing to
swing early in the count, consistently, he is being "impatient", as I see it.

>I once did a rough analysis of the relationship between Ks and BBs that showed
>some (not huge) correlation between very high Ks and very high BBs but I could
>never figure out whether this was caused by a missing-BB connection or by the
>fact that high Ks are associated with power hitters who frighten pitchers who
>then walk the hitters to avoid worse damage.

Isn't this just a reflection of the fact that taking more pitches means that
more of your PAs will be decided without the ball being put into play, one
way or another?


-- 
       David Tate        |"Something there is that doesn't love a wall,
 dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu | That sends the screaming liner over it 
 Prof. of Story Problems | And spills the bleacher-dwellers from their seats."
 Member ORSA, TIMS, SABR |  	"Fenway Wall", Robert Frost
From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Ten Best Peaks (was Sandberg)
Date: 26 Jan 1993 13:23:57 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: gondolin.pubs.stratus.com

In article <2500@blue.cis.pitt.edu> genetic+@pitt.edu (David M. Tate)  
writes:
> 
> I think Greg probably meant "No more than 9 guys ever had peak  
values higher
> than Morgan's", not "Morgan's peak was farther above his regular  
level than
> all but 9...".  In other words, ignore "the rest of the career" and  
just see
> whose top 2 or 3 years were the best among all players' top 2 or 3  
years.
> 

In talking about peak years, do we usually use a span as short as
2 or 3 years. I guess I've always thought of peak as the 6 to 8 years
that a player is really at his height over, say, a 15 year career.
2 or 3 years sounds rather short.

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

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: clari re-posts (was Re: Sandberg (was Re: Ty Griffen))
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 20:53:54 GMT

>Charlie Gehringer should be in this discussion too:  
>
>From clari.sports.baseball:
>
>
>	BIRMINGHAM, Mich. (UPI) -- Hall of Fame second baseman Charlie
>Gehringer, a lifetime .320 hitter, has died. He was 89.
>
>[rest of article deleted]

not trying to be the net.police, but those of us who get the clari
groups should be careful not to re-post whole articles nor substantial portions
thereof. i'm pretty sure the clari folks would not be too happy.
i don't think minor excerpts (with credit of course) are a problem though.

--
charles
From: charly@hal.COM (Charly Rhoades)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Winter Work-out Reports (was: Todd Zeile)
Date: 27 Jan 1993 09:58:24 -0800
Organization: HaL Computer Systems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: renoir.hal.com
Summary: Journalism Food-Chain: Sportwriters are Pretty Low

In article <9301260534.AA16825@bottom.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> cclaydon@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (C Robert Claydon) writes:

[ regarding Willie McGee's off-season training]

>...  One local sportswriter in Columbus went so far as to say 
>he'd have years to top the ones Eric Davis and Darryl Strawberry had just had 
>(not shabby, if you look back).  Well, not only did McGee not have a career 
>high in homers, he didn't even hit 15 if memory serves, and spent a good part 
>of the year on the DL...  so, the moral of the story is reports such as this 
>are dubious predictors, at best, of upcoming performance.  (BTW: the 
>sportswriter who made that prediction is now the editor of the Arts, 
>Entertainment, Fashion, etc (ie: fluff) part of the paper... 8^).


From the perspective of a sports-fan, perhaps the Arts, Entertainment,
and Fashion sections are "fluff."

From my perspective (and I *am* a pretty big sports fan who also happens
to be a writer), I'd call such a move lateral at worst.

Then again, having spent 18 months living in Columbus (OH), I could
understand why covering the entertainment beat in that city-that-thinks-
it's-a-town would probably be considered a demotion.  (Although I
left just as the Wexner Center was starting to attract some interesting
performances.)

-- 
   Charly Rhoades               
                                   This message provided for
   HaL Computer Systems           informational purposes only
   charly@hal.com            
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball