HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: "mike walker" <mike.walker@canrem.com>
Subject: blue jays-eichhorn??
Reply-To: "mike walker" <mike.walker@canrem.com>
Organization: Canada Remote Systems
Distribution: rec
Date: 23 Dec 92 08:12:22 EST


Okay, so I don't understand what the Jays are doing this off-season.
Too much $$$ to Carter (much as I like him), too little in return for
Gruber (much as I DISLIKE him). Molitor for Winfield sucks, since
they're playing almost exactly twice the money for a guy only
marginally better. I'd rather have Winfield and another $2 million a
year to spend on a shortstop or 3rd baseman. I liked Candy and Henke
but can see it was time for them to move on. Now they let Lee go and
say the job is Zosky's??? They've gotta be kiddin'....

My real question is Mark Eichorn's status. The papers here are quiet,
I don't know what's going on. I thought the club had an option, but if
so they didn't exercise it. In one report he was listed as being
offered arbitration at one point, but no mention, however, as to
whether he accepted it. What is his status?

A little history. The Jays got Ike in early August when he had a 2.48
ERA over almost 60 innings as Calif. set-up guy. They gave up 2
players, Greg Myers (a pretty decent catcher) and Rob Ducey (an
almost-but-not-quite outfielder for too long) for him. Seems to me he
pitched pretty well for the Jays although he only got about 30 innings
and ended up with a 3.08 ERA for the season. He wasn't used as set-up,
of course, since Ward had that nailed down. He also didn't see much of
the post-season, if memory serves.

Now, however, with Henke history the Jays need a set-up guy. They are
talking Timlin, which simply doesn't fit, from what I've seen of him.
They seem to be totally ignoring Ike and are now reported to be going
after Oakland's Jeff Parrett, the papers claim. According to the Elias
ratings in BB Weakly, Eichorn is a class A free agent, #12 in the
league, while Parrett is class B, #44 (for what that's worth). What
gives??? Is Eichorn's salary to high? Is he somehow damaged? Anybody
got a better read on this one? . . . . Mike
---
  DeLuxe 1.12 #165  "If you ain't the lead dog, the scenery never changes."
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
From: deitch@gisatl.FIDONET.ORG (David Deitch)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Atlanta pitching
Date: 20 Dec 92 16:38:27 GMT
Organization: Galaxy Information System (GIS) Atlanta, Ga

Dateline Wed, 16/Dec92 20:31.
In , Deb Tokarewich of dtokarew@tokafew.Doc.Provo.Novell.COM  wrote to All at 1:133/411,

> Food for thought. :)

 DT> I'm trying not to choke on that food!  I can see a pitcher 
 DT> feeling more  comfortable about going to another team 
 DT> that has a catcher he used to  pitch to.  But to go to 
 DT> another team *because* of that catcher?   Especially 

    Don't be so suprised.  Maddux's decision to come to Atlanta was not motivated by money (since the Yankees offered 7 million more than he accepted from the Braves), so who he would play with, where he would play, and the overall direction of the team played an important role.  In that light, it is not so hard to understand how a long-time close friend like a catcher could influence his decision...

        David Deitch, (GIS) Atlanta



--  
                   __ 
FidoNet <==> UUCP /  \   UUCP: wittsend!gisatl!deitch 
     Gateway     / oo \  Internet: deitch@gisatl.FIDONET.ORG
                (_|  /_)         
David Deitch,    _`@/_ \    _  Galaxy Information System
Administrator   |     | \   \\ (GIS) Atlanta
(404)252-1699   | (*) |  \_  ))
    ______      |__U__| /  \//   User: David Deitch
   / FIDO \      _//|| _\   /    Via FidoNet Node: 1:133/411.0
  (________)    (_/(_|(____/ (jm)   
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: tedward@cs.cornell.edu (Edward [Ted] Fischer)
Subject: Re: Sierra with A's: 5 yrs/$30MM
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 15:33:02 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.034707.2262@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>
>As you said, the trade makes absolutely no sense.  They traded Canseco
>for Sierra and Witt, for a lot more money than Canseco alone was going
>to cost them.

This deal *maybe* makes sense *if* Canseco was a serious clubhouse
problem and this was the only way to resolve it.  Canseco isn't that
much better than Sierra on the field, and he is quite a bit more
injury prone at this point.  He has averaged only 117 games over the
last four years.  Sierra, on the other hand, has averaged 158 games,
is younger, and is showing no chronic problems.  He is also signed
farther into the future than Canseco would have been.  Since the A's
aren't going to contend for a few years, why pay Canseco so that he
can walk after two?

>Of course, the Red Sox also re-signed Billy Hatcher.  And signed 85-year
>old no-knee no-walk Andre Dawson to make 1000s of outs for the team.
>
>(Are you reading this, Valentine?  I feel like gloating a little.)

Why would I care what Lou Gorman does with the Dead Sox?  It's not
like I still root for them or anything...

-Valentine
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Spehr
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 19:56:57 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.133601.13139@cbnews.cb.att.com> dae@cbnews.cb.att.com (david.a.elliott) writes:
>In article <1039@blue.cis.pitt.edu> genetic+@pitt.edu (Dr. Dave) writes:
>>Sorry, my fault.  I misread my data, and thought Spehr was 25 this year 
>>(instead of 27).  False alarm.  He put up some *really* lovely stats at
>>Omaha last year, but at 27 that could well be the sort of "catching up to
>>AAA" that makes Torey Lovullo's stats look good at Columbus.
>
>Maybe, but there are a few things in his favor.  First, he walks a lot, so
>even if he bats only .230 (which will probably happen), he will still have a
>better than average OBP.  

What's "a lot"?  In AAA, 1990-91, he walked 66 times in 522 AB.  Of course,
he also had 14 HBP, but neither of those really carried over to his 88 PA
cup-of-coffee with KC in '91 (9 BB, 1 HBP).

>At 27, what the Expos see is what they'll get with Spehr.  He's not likely
>to get any better than he already is.  But even with a .700 OPS, he'll be
>better than half the catchers in either league offensively.  For what it's
>worth, he also has a reputation as a good defensive catcher.

Fair enough.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
From: deitch@gisatl.FIDONET.ORG (David Deitch)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Braves land Maddox !!
Date: 22 Dec 92 02:07:25 GMT
Organization: Galaxy Information System (GIS) Atlanta, Ga

Dateline Thu, 17/Dec92 04:13.
In , Mike Marler of ccastmm@prism.gatech.EDU  wrote to All at 1:133/411,

 MM> I think if you check you will find that Atlanta-Fulton 
 MM> County Stadium is run by the city/county  and the 
 MM> Braves have to pay for use.  The "city/county" Stadium 
 MM> "Commision" collects all parking and concession fees 
 MM> and the Braves get nada.  This is the very reason that 
 MM> Rankin Smith was determined to have the Georgia Dome 
 MM> built and a "new deal" for the Falcons.  The city of 
 MM> Atlanta "pissed" the Braves recently with the recent 
 MM> design proposed for the new "post olympic stadium" since 
 MM> it would have retail store fronts outside of the 
 MM> stadium.  But you are correct, the Braves have costs 
 MM> incurred in using Atlanta-Fulton County.  The Braves 
 MM> did at least cut costs by dropping minor (and rookie) 
 MM> league teams in (or after) 1991.

    The Braves lease the stadium.  Now that the Falcon's are in the dome, they have an exclusive during the baseball season so the field is in much better shape.  The Braves deal with the Olympic Stadium is sweet any way you look at it.  The fallout over the retail front was simply that they weren't informed.  But then, the whole thing was secret until it was unveiled.  What is this about dropping the farm teams?  Not that I am aware...

 MM> TBS did that when the team was below .500 and I am not sure 
 MM> what the Braves pay other than the annoucers.  I think 
 MM> TBS gets (still got before) good ratings due to the lack 
 MM> of BB on the tube.  They can raise advertising costs; I 
 MM> sure ain't worried about 'em.

    WCW paid for it while the braves were in the doghouse.  The lack of baseball has nothing to do with it - we just played the best baseball.

 MM> I can not handle the fact that people like WCW (wonder if 
 MM> Prime Time can wrestle - he sure has the mouth :-) .  
 MM> Turner and Turner Broascasting are not hurting.

    Only by cable deregulation.

 MM> You got that right, and they are close on closing the deal - 
 MM> heard that rumor on the radio this morning.

    Deal closed.  Glavine gave in on his request for a guaranteed 5th year for better numbers on the first 4.

 MM> Better start worrying about Avery's contract next.

    Nah, the kid has a few more years of indentured servitude...

    David Deitch (GIS),
    Net 133 FidoNet<==>UUCP Gateway Administrator



--  
                   __ 
FidoNet <==> UUCP /  \   UUCP: wittsend!gisatl!deitch 
  Gateway & FAQ  / oo \  Internet: deitch@gisatl.FIDONET.ORG
                (_|  /_)         
David Deitch,    _`@/_ \    _  Galaxy Information System
Administrator   |     | \   \\ (GIS) Atlanta
(404)252-1699   | (*) |  \_  ))
    ______      |__U__| /  \//   User: David Deitch
   / FIDO \      _//|| _\   /    Via FidoNet Node: 1:133/411.0
  (________)    (_/(_|(____/ (jm)
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Expos Clinch! Wallach to Dodgers
Date: 3 Jan 93 19:54:29 GMT
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <1993Jan3.193620.27863@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca> maynard@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Roger Maynard) writes:
>Exactly.  That is why your predictions are laughable.  If you really think
>that your methods are more accurate than those of the common herd then
>why don't you hop on down to Vegas and get rich betting on baseball?  

I've answered this question before.  Keep in mind that bookies make money
by shaving 10% off of all the bets.  Even if I'm 10% better than
average (a difficult feat), I only break even.  If I'm 20% better than
average, then I've achieved the same rate of return that I would've
gotten by investing in a risk-free treasury security.  Not a good way to
make money.  

>>When a team plays badly, it is *said* to have poor intangibles.  So you can't
>>use their bad play as *proof* that their intangibles affected them.
>
>>And you can't predict them.  Will the Mets have a good OBP next year?
>>No, not with their current batch of players.  I can say that with 95%
>>confidence.  Will they have good intangibles next year?  I have no idea,
>
>Does OBP have anything to do with winning?  If it does you should figure
>on making some money out of this info.  But if your information on OBP
>does not correlate with how many games the team will win then it is useless
>information isn't it?

Since it does, it isn't.

Hey, I'm willing to give 50-1 odds that the Mets won't win the World Series.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
From: boell@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Donald P Boell)
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 17:51:14 GMT
Subject: Re: LaValliere's comments about Pirates
Organization: the HP Corporate notes server
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball

>Being outspoken as he is, it is a surprise he hasn't been moved yet.  What
>happened to the proposed trade between Pittsburgh and the Giants for
>Willie McGee?  Was Willie's salary too much for the Bucs?

No, I think Mike's knees may be too much for the Giants.

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball,soc.women,soc.men
From: lib@cbnews.cb.att.com (Lib)
Subject: Re: Women Sports Reporters
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 13:39:54 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.024452.24795@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
>
>Wyche did not try to unilaterally ban women reporters from the locker
>room, but attempted to secure the privacy of his players while they
>were bathing and void of clothing.  He erected a temporary wall in the
   
This while they are bathing thing is a big have. Reporters try to
interview players at their lockers. Most big-time locker rooms have
seperate shower and locker rooms, if only to keep the locker area dry.
It's easy to curtain off the shower rooms and a minor inconvenience
for players not to actually walk from lockers to showers while nalked.
  
>I assume that men reporters are also entitled to interview women
>athletes while they are bathing, although I've never heard of one man
>even attempting to do so.
   
Male reporters are allowed in female locker rooms. It is actually
easier than having women in men's lockers since women don't usually
walk around the locker room naked though they do remove equipment,
tape, etc. at their lockers. Male reporters don't try to
interview women while they are bathing any more than female reporters
try to interview male athletes while they are bathing. Interviews are
done at lockers.
  
>fully clothed in front of women reporters.  He understood that the
>incident with the New England Patriots football players and a woman
>reporter came about because these Partriot football players were very
>resentful of a woman reporter insisting on interviewing players in the
>locker room immediately after practice while they were bathing.  He was

The incident with the Patriots happened in the locker area not while
people were bathing. Also it happened during the week, not after a game.
Also the previous weekend players had complained to management about her
behavior in the locker room (not that that justifies dealing with it by
acting like they did).

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: kmews@minnie.imd.nrc.ca
Subject: Re: Expos Clinch! Wallach to Dodgers
Organization: NRC-Institute for Marine Dynamics
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 16:07:24 GMT

In article <1992Dec25.121427.21448@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
> 
> I guess that, given the Dodgers current record with high-paid players,
> that $6.8 mill over 2 years for a poor-fielding 35-yo 3B (soon to be 1B)
> who hasn't hit .230 in two years, doesn't figure to break 700 OPS for the
> rest of career, accounting for expansion fluke stats, is reasonable.
> 
Wallach is not a poor-fielding third baseman. He may be a poor fielding
first baseman. You are right in that he has completely lost the offensive
part of his game and was not giving Montreal sufficient value for what
he was being paid. The Dodgers have money to burn however. 

Do the Dodgers plan to play him at first or third?

Keith Mews

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: djcoll04@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: S.CAl schedule-late April 93
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 23:36:07 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <19098@mindlink.bc.ca>, Edward_Lunny@mindlink.bc.ca (Edward Lunny) writes:
> When does the 1993 major league schedule come out and in what publications.
> It seems I got one last year in the USA today.  A friend is going to be in
> L.A. and San diego in the last 2 weeks of April and would like to know what
> the schedules will be for the Dodgers, A's, and Padres while he is there.
> Appreciate any help.  Thanks.
> --
>
From: arrow@netcom.com (Les Arrow)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Question for Giants Fans
Keywords: Except for Dusty Baker!
Date: 21 Dec 92 21:54:32 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1grrqkINNsk9@agate.berkeley.edu> srubio@garnet.berkeley.edu (Steven Rubio) writes:
>I am a Giants fan of some 35 years.  The first words I taught my
>now-teenaged children to speak were "Dodgers Suck."  But, with the
>exception of Steve Garvey, who woulda STILL sucked even if he became a
>Giant, I can let bygones be bygones when it comes to a fine managerial
>prospect like Dusty Baker.  Dodger fans SHOULD be asking themselves how
>come their "team" is saddled with such a useless incompetent like Lasorda
>when ex-Dodgers like Dusty Baker abound who could actually do something
>with a baseball team.
>

Ooooooh, Steve, you had to know I wouldn't let this one get by. By the way,
could you help me with my math? How many rings has Tommy won with the
Dodgers compared to say....hmmmmm.....Roger Craig with the Giants? 

I think your deep hatred in the Dodgers may be tied to the frustration
you have every time you look at the Giant Pitching staff. Have they
resigned Rick Reuschel yet to be the number 1 starter? 

>I am reminded of the Saga of Reggie Smith, one of the most underrated
>players of his day.  When Reggie was a Dodger, he was singled out for
>exceptional abuse on his visits to Candlestick.  I fondly remember one
>game where Reggie climbed into the stands to beat up a drunken fellow who
>had said a few words too many to Mr. Smith.
>
>And then one day in 1982, he joined the Giants.
>
>And at the home opener, when Reggie Smith was announced, we booed lustily.
> And when Reggie came to the plate for his first official at-bat as a
>Giant, we booed some more.  And he knocked the ball off the outfield wall
>for a double.  And so, the next time he came to the plate, the boos were a
>bit quieter ... we were thinking that, Dodger or no, Reggie Smith could
>hit.  And he knocked another titanic clout off the wall.
>
>The third time he came to the plate, we all chanted in unison: "REG-GIE,
>REG-GIE, REG-GIE!"
>
>Hey, if he'd a been an ex-Pirate like Barry Bonds, we woulda cheered from
>the get go.  But since he was an ex-Dodger, we waited a few atbats. 
>Reggie Smith was Mr. Clutch that season for the Giants; I remember his
>season with us as a fine one.
>

Great story. Dusty Baker will make a fine manager. Unfortunately, I hope
he gets a chance to manage a real pitching staff in the future before
being raked over the coals. Because nothing is going to help this
year's Giants team. Only expansion will keep them out of the cellar.

BTW, Brett Butler says hi. He wants to know how Willie McGee is doing.

--Les
From: snichols@adobe.com (Sherri Nichols)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Old-fashioned hitters (was Best Playes (sic) of All Times)
Date: 23 Dec 92 02:56:06 GMT
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated

In article <1h7o24INNi17@transfer.stratus.com> jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com writes:
>Several people have now said that the total batting average today
>is much the same as it was in the 1920s and 1930s. Is this true?
>It seems to me that a couple of days ago some folks were saying
>that "Yeah, Pie Traynor hit .320 (or whatever) but the whole league
>at that time hit .302 (or whatever)."  Which is correct?  (I keep
>all my reference books at home, so I have no way to check it
>now.)

This gives me a chance to plug a wonderful book, which was recently
advertised in the latest SABR bulletin.  _Baseball Graphics_, by John
Warner Davenport, 1979, First Impressions.   This book is chock full of
graphs of all sorts of interesting things.  Among these graphs is a graph
of the range of team batting averages since 1901.  Team batting averages
show a pretty steady decline from 1930 to the late '60s (with a blip during
the war years).  

Davenport has another book as well, _Pennant Races_, which looks at pennant
races graphically.  

Sherri Nichols
snichols@adobe.com
From: deitch@gisatl.FIDONET.ORG (David Deitch)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Atlanta pitching
Date: 20 Dec 92 16:37:01 GMT
Organization: Galaxy Information System (GIS) Atlanta, Ga

Dateline Wed, 16/Dec92 19:48.
In , Ted Frank of thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu  wrote to All at 1:133/411,

 TF> And the relieving won't be bad, either, if they pitch 
 TF> Wohlers instead of Reardon or Pena.

    Neither Reardon nor Pena are with the organization anymore.

        David Deitch, (GIS) Atlanta



--  
                   __ 
FidoNet <==> UUCP /  \   UUCP: wittsend!gisatl!deitch 
     Gateway     / oo \  Internet: deitch@gisatl.FIDONET.ORG
                (_|  /_)         
David Deitch,    _`@/_ \    _  Galaxy Information System
Administrator   |     | \   \\ (GIS) Atlanta
(404)252-1699   | (*) |  \_  ))
    ______      |__U__| /  \//   User: David Deitch
   / FIDO \      _//|| _\   /    Via FidoNet Node: 1:133/411.0
  (________)    (_/(_|(____/ (jm)
From: genetic+@pitt.edu (Dr. Dave)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Spehr
Date: 21 Dec 92 18:33:22 GMT
Organization: Department of Industrial Engineering

Thus spake thf2@midway.uchicago.edu:
>>
>>what's Spehr's story? I've never heard of him...
>
>Am I missing something?  I don't know where Spehr was in '92 (he didn't
>seem to be playing at catcher anywhere in the majors), but isn't he 26
>with MLE's of around 700?  

Sorry, my fault.  I misread my data, and thought Spehr was 25 this year 
(instead of 27).  False alarm.  He put up some *really* lovely stats at
Omaha last year, but at 27 that could well be the sort of "catching up to
AAA" that makes Torey Lovullo's stats look good at Columbus.



-- 
       David Tate        |"Out of the dugout endlessly swinging,
 dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu | Out of the manager's throat, the sound fundamentals,
 Prof. of Story Problems | Out of the six-month season..."            
 Member ORSA, TIMS, SABR | 	Walt "Lefty" Whitman
From: spira@panix.com (Greg "Sarcasm Is A Way Of Life" Spira)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Expos Clinch! Wallach to Dodgers
Date: 25 Dec 92 21:04:32 GMT
Organization: Boo!

In <Dec.25.11.18.10.1992.29937@pilot.njin.net> gajarsky@pilot.njin.net (Bob Gajarsky - Hobokenite) writes:

>just a point...

>i think wallach is as bad an offensive player as everyone else
> here on the net, but...looking in my STATS books from
> '92 and '91 seasons, wallach is 2nd best in the majors last
> year (in limited time) and 4th in the n.l. in '91 (which
> correspodns roughly to average) in range.  

>so why does everyone refer to him as a poor fielder?  
> - bob gaj

Don't know.  I think his fielding has fallen a long way, but from
great to about average, not to bad.  It's his offense that has
fallen to levels that are not worthy of playing time.

I used to think that Fred Claire was a half decent gm.  No more
Acquiring Wallach is like bring a trojan horse into your home.

Greg 
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: tedward@cs.cornell.edu (Edward [Ted] Fischer)
Subject: Re: Expos Clinch! Wallach to Dodgers
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 20:59:00 GMT

In article <1993Jan3.193620.27863@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca> maynard@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Roger Maynard) writes:
>
>Odds are calculated
>according to how bookies predict people will bet - not on the final score.
>Surely your scientific methods would give you the advantage over those
>who bet by gut feelings?

Have you forgotten the cut for the bookie?  It's rather significant...
I could certainly make money betting directly with the masses.  Forget
statistics, I could do it on general knowledge alone.  But I submit
that *nobody* knows enough about baseball to beat the skew.

>I submit that your predictions might allow you
>to break even - assuming that "luck" is on your side!

I agree.  That seems about right.

>Does OBP have anything to do with winning?  If it does you should figure
>on making some money out of this info.  But if your information on OBP
>does not correlate with how many games the team will win then it is useless
>information isn't it?

OBP *does* correlate with winning, and it is even reasonably
predictable.  It still isn't enough to beat the bookie.

(Is Roger this stupid naturally or does he have to work at it?  It
seems he hasn't understood *anything* we have said, since he continues
to misrepresent our position.)

-Valentine
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball