HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: claudius@leland.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu)
Subject: RC/27 for CFs
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 92 22:46:43 GMT

				RC/27	VALUE
Andy Van Slyke, Pittsburgh	8.43	60.8
Ken Griffey, Seattle		8.35	56.5
Kirby Puckett, Minnesota	7.45	50.6
Brett Butler, Los Angeles	7.10	41.4
Ray Lankford, St. Louis		6.92	43.4
Deion Sanders, Atlanta		6.66	20.3	; is this a sign? :-)
Lenny Dykstra, Philadelphia	6.58	22.9
Reggie Sanders, Cincinnati	6.43	23.1	; cf. Karros = ~7.0
Mike Devereaux, Baltimore	5.80	28.5
Marquis Grissom, Montreal	5.72	27.6
Juan Gonzalez, Texas		5.70	24.5
Kenny Lofton, Cleveland		5.61	22.5	; Listach = 36.1
Steve Finley, Houston		5.53	22.0
Otis Nixon, Atlanta		5.23	13.1
Ellis Burks, Boston		5.22	7.5
AVERAGE				5.07
Roberto Kelly, New York (AL)	5.00	13.8
Robin Yount, Milwaukee		4.75	9.6
Lance Johnson, Chicago (AL)	4.65	8.2
Howard Johnson, New York (NL)	4.43	3.7
Sammy Sosa, Chicago (NL)	4.43	2.7
Willie Wilson, Oakland		4.41	3.6
Bob Zupcic, Boston		4.41	3.2
Devon White, Toronto		4.37	5.0
Darrin Jackson, San Diego	4.35	5.2
Dave Martinez, Cincinnati	4.14	0.7
Junior Felix, California	3.70	-5.1
Doug Dascenzo, Chicago (NL)	3.41	-6.3
Brian McRae, Kansas City	3.33	-10.6	; no comment necessary
Darren Lewis, San Francisco	3.19	-7.6
Milt Cuyler, Detroit		2.94	-9.5

===============================================================================
GO CALIFORNIA ANGELS!
===============================================================================
Nelson Lu (claudius@leland.stanford.edu)
From: RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Bonds "choke"?
Date: 2 Oct 92 23:40:22 GMT
Article-I.D.: vma.92276.184022RVESTERM
 <1992Oct1.020833.9870@Princeton.EDU> <92275.012838RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu>
 <1992Oct2.155144.18940@adobe.com>

oy vey.  now this snichols person quotes me as saying (this time verbatim),

      however, it seems to me that a lot of people are going
      beyond this, and saying, "there is no such thing as a
      choke or a clutch player.  you're an idiot if you think
      there is."

she then responds (also verbatim), "Thank you for calling me an idiot."

whoa, babe, where did i call you an idiot? where in that paragraph
did i call ANYONE an idiot? where in that paragraph did i even
mention that i thought idiots might EXIST?

time to brush up on the reading skills.  particularly, the use of
quotation marks - what they're intended for, and such.
From: stanm@comm.mot.com (Stan Macasieb)
Subject: Cubs Close Season on Upnote
Reply-To: stanm@comm.mot.com
Organization: Motorola
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 22:13:29 GMT


As usual, it seems, the Cubs ended a dismal season on an upbeat note
by defeating the Expos yesterday 3-2. Frank Castillo picked up win #10
of the year. And Andre Dawson carried the day with a three-run homer in
left-center field, the 399th homer of his major-league career.

Today the Cubs announced that they will retain all but one of coaches
for next year. Pitching coach Billy Connors, dugout coach Tom Trebelhorn,
3rd base coach Chuck Cottier, 1st base coach Jose Martinez, and hitting
instructor Billy Williams will join Manager Jim Lefevbre for the 1993
season. Bullpen coach Sammy Ellis was not retained.

Well, time to hit the ice. It's hockey season for me. Let me know how the
playoffs go. Go Cubs! Go White Sox! Go Blackhawks!

******************************************************************************
--Stan Macasieb (stanm@comm.mot.com)              |  1992 Election Ballot
--Motorola, Land Mobile Products Sector           |  
--Schaumburg, IL (just another suburb of Chicago) |  For President-
--------------------------------------------------|
~~The opinion expressed in this post is not       |  ___ George Bush (GOP)
~~necessarily those of this corporation.          |  ___ Bill Clinton (Dem)
~~Copyright 1992, all rights reserved.            |  ___ H Ross Perot (Weenie)
******************************************************************************

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Lead off walks....
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 18:53:19 GMT

In <1992Sep30.233148.1297@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> z_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
>In article <GRABINER.92Sep30183837@germain.harvard.edu>, grabiner@math.harvard.edu (David Grabiner) writes:
>> In article <1992Sep30.153621.1287@ccsvax.sfasu.edu>, z writes:

>>> 	Okay, time for bad-but-possible-explaination-time:

>>> 	The avergae pitcher gives up a hit an inning. If a pitcher gives
>>> up a single to lead off the inning, there is a good chance there won't
>>> be another hit that inning. OTOH, if the pitcher leads off yeilding a
>>> walk, the batting team still has that hit they are likely to pick up
>>> later in the inning.

>> This is the gambler's fallacy.  The chance that a coin will land heads
>> does not depend on the previous flip.  Likewise, the chance that a team
>> will get a hit in the current inning does not depend on what happened in
>> the earlier part of the inning.

>	No, it is not gambler's fallacy; the chance of a team getting two hits
>in an inning is less than the chance of them getting one hit in an inning.

Yes, it's the gambler's fallacy all over again.  The chance of a team
getting two hits in an inning, once they've gotten a hit, is EQUAL to the 
chance of them getting one hit in an inning.  Why?  Because they need
the same thing -- one hit.  (Pitchers being equal, of course.)

It's like arguing that the chance of getting two heads in a row is less
than the chance of getting one head.  True, UNTIL you've gotten the
first head.  Then the chance is the same.  The second coin flip doesn't
"know" that you've already gotten one head.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Orioles 1993 World Series Champions
niepornt@phoenix.    | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
   princeton.edu     | Roland Hemond: SIGN BARRY BONDS!!!!!!!!
Vote Clinton/Gore '92.   Four more months!
From: genetic+@pitt.edu (Dr. Dave)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Sandberg v Thomas/Oakland Coliseum/Cubs
Date: 28 Sep 92 18:41:16 GMT
Organization: Department of Industrial Engineering

Speaking of Frank Thomas...

Through yesterday (Sunday 9/27), Big Frank had amassed 296 total bases, with
299 times on base (not counting HBP).  With 7 ChiSox games remaining, he looks
like a sure thing to become the first player since Mickey Mantle to have
back-to-back 300/300 seasons.

As an interesting sidelight, he's also had back-to-back 100 run/100 rbi years.
I'd have to go back and check, to see when the last time anyone did both of
those in consecutive years.  Probably still The Mick, but I'm not sure.

In the Totally Scary department, Barry Bonds looks to end up with about 280
times on base and > 300 total bases, despite missing those 19 games with the
rib-cage pull.  Give him back 10 of those games, and he'd be 300/300 too, by
a large margin...

-- 
       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
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: claudius@leland.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu)
Subject: AL ROY: More Fuel for Debate
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 04:18:20 GMT

Same as the NL post.

Pat Listach, Milwaukee		36.1
Kenny Lofton, Cleveland		22.5
Andy Stankiewicz, New York	15.1
John Valentin, Boston		10.8
Scott Cooper, Boston		10.1
Chad Curtis, California		6.1
Jeff Tackett, Baltimore		4.9
Lenny Webster, Minnesota	4.4
Bob Zupcic, Boston		3.4
Damion Easley, California	1.9

===============================================================================
GO CALIFORNIA ANGELS!
===============================================================================
Nelson Lu (claudius@leland.stanford.edu)


Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: kubey@sgi.com (Ken Kubey)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Bonds "choke"?
Date: 6 Oct 92 23:55:24 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA

In article <thornley.718406853@milli> thornley@milli.cs.umn.edu (David H. Thornley) writes:
>
>Don't forget that Bonds has faced left-handed pitching about two-thirds
>of the time in the LCS, as opposed to about one-third of the time in the
>regular season.  He hasn't had much of a platoon differential in the past
>two years, but facing extra lefties isn't going to help him.

I have a hard time believing that Bonds can't hit lefties.
I'm willing to say that his expected average for the LCS should be
.270 or .280 because he is facing good pitchers.  

[munch]

>>I think it *does* "suggest" that something unusual is happening.
>>It doesn't prove anything, but it certainly suggests something.
>>.002 is still a 500-1 longshot.  Interestingly, this streak happened to
>>one of the leagues most feared hitters in the most important games
>>he has ever played. 
>
>Yes, but this isn't a 500-1 longshot.  What you have done is found an
>oddity in the data and pushed it for all it's worth.  Had you posted a
>prediction before the 1990 NLCS that Bonds would end the 1991 NLCS tied
>for the longest streak of hitless ABs with men on base, this would be a
>real and legitimate longshot.  Instead, you have looked at the data ex
>post facto, and carefully selected the facts that look odd.

Note: from some other posts, we are now looking at an 0-22 streak.
The chance of that happening is closer to .001

Okay, I see what you are getting at.  Bonds has probably had 30 or so
at-bats with runners on base in the LCS's so he has had ~10 chances to
go 0-22 -- something like that right?  So we are only talking about
a 100-1 shot.

[munch]
>Consider dice.  [sound example deleted]

Dice don't have a memory.  People do.  
I am very confident that when Bonds comes up with someone on base
this week, he will be thinking about his past failures in the LCS.

>Now, Bonds' failures in the NLCS are significant, and certainly important
>for Pittsburgh, but it's real difficult to determine their *statistical*
>significance.  For the record, I think it's a statistical fluke, and that
>he will do well in this NLCS.

You're entitled to your opinion.

The game will be on in about 50 minutes.  Let's go watch and see what 
really happens.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name:       Ken Kubey  or  QB   |  Reading, editing or printing of this text
Address:    kubey@sgi.com       |  without the express written consent of
Disclaimer: the usual           |  Major League Baseball is prohibited.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tuesday, 29 Sep 1992 18:21:30 EST
From: <RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Elias/STATS projections

elias did NOT "nail plantier," as someone said they did.

elias predicted .270 ba, .417 sa, .386 oba.  a far cry from his real stats,
.242 ba, .349 sa, .325 oba.

admittedly, they did better than stats inc:  .281 / .514 / .374.

however, this (to me) is just another case of both of them blowing big
wads, rather than one being better than the other.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: thornley@milli.cs.umn.edu (David H. Thornley)
Subject: Re: Why *is* OBP more valuable than SLG?
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, CSci dept.
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 03:07:44 GMT

In article <6411@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> genetic+@pitt.edu (Dr. Dave) writes:
>Thus spake gajarsky@pilot.njin.net (Bob Gajarsky):
>>
>>can anyone explain WHY (with reasoning, or whatever) why OBP is
>> considered more valuable than SLG?  
>
>Two possible justifications:
>
>1. Empirical: historically, given two teams with similar OPS, the one with
>   the higher OPS has tended to score more runs.
>
>2. Related Theory: in the Runs Created model of team scoring, OBP and SLG
>   contribute to team runs through their product.

Actually, they contribute to rate of team runs per plate appearance (or
similar unit of play).  OBP also increases the number of plate appearances
per game, so it contributes both to raising runs per plate appearances
(slightly more than SLG does) and to raising the number of plate
appearances to score runs in (which SLG doesn't).  My best calculations
are that OBP points are worth about 1.3 times as much as SLG points,
although there are times I'd take SLG instead.

David Thornley
"The manager must be able to spit tobacco juice on the field and understand
sabermetrics in the clubhouse." - Niccolo Machiavelli



  For a given OPS, this
>   product is maximized when OBP=SLG.  Since OBP < SLG in almost every real
>   team season, raising OBP ten points closes the gap, while raises SLG ten
>   points widens it.  Thus, the points of OBP are more valuable if the RC
>   model is roughly correct.  At current levels of league OBP and SLG, for
>   an average team the marginal value of a point of OBP is about 1.3 times
>   that of a point of SLG, according to the RC model.
>
>
>-- 
>       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: snichols@adobe.com (Sherri Nichols)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: R.S.BB FAQ V1.22 (9/25/92)
Date: 2 Oct 92 16:08:24 GMT
Article-I.D.: adobe.1992Oct2.160824.19326
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated

In article <1992Oct2.041512.25458@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca> 91287041@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Roger Maynard) writes:
>>Read a dictionary, Roger.  "Prominent" means readily noticeable,
>>conspicuous.  There are certainly some posters on this net that are more
>>noticeable than others, because they post more often.  
>
>I see the words "distinguished" and "important" in my dictionary.  Aren't
>they in yours?

Come on, Roger, surely you know how to *use* a dictionary.  Most words have
more than one possible meaning.  You use context to determine the
appropriate meaning.  Judging from the responses, it seems pretty obvious
that most people understood what meaning of "prominent" was intended here.  

>>Well, since you can see so well, why don't you tell us exactly what my
>>involvement with baseball is and has been.
>
>Something to do with fencing isn't it? epee? foil? or is it sabre?  whatever,
>your words are sharp and your humour cutting...(you called me a dweeb
>once)

I suppose this is intended to be amusing, though I don't understand how.

If I called you a dweeb, I apologize.  However, I don't recall ever having
done so.

>The last paragraph was probably the most sincere in my whole posting.  At
>least Kurt realizes it.  (or does he?)

Doesn't wash, Roger.  You can't attack people, then say, "oh, I was just
teasing you".

Sherri Nichols
snichols@adobe.com
From: dzappala@caldera.usc.edu (Daniel Zappala)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Big news for the Angels! :-)
Date: 29 Sep 1992 15:18:51 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Distribution: world
Reply-To: dzappala@caldera.usc.edu (Daniel Zappala)
NNTP-Posting-Host: caldera.usc.edu



The Angels unveiled a new logo this morning, which, by radio reports,
is a "stylized version of the old CA logo, with red letters on a teal
background."  The announcer said it looked something like a spiffy
Colorado Rockies logo.  

(I like the Rockies' cap, and was tempted to buy one when I saw it.)

No word on whether this includes new uniforms, as well as hats and
stationery.


Daniel
From: chill@cbnews.cb.att.com (daniel.a.miller)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Who needs a Pennant Race!
Date: 5 Oct 92 19:40:14 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbnews.1992Oct5.194014.20254
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T


	Well the Cleveland Indians FINALLY got themselves out of the
cellar in the American League. Does this team have promise or what!
That is as long as the Indians Management doen't decide to sell off
these fine young players one at a time! 

	I'm going to make a prediction for next year, as long as the
players on this years team stay Cleveland Indians. I'll say the Tribe
will battle for a third place finish next year, with a possibility
of a Pennant contender for the 1994 season. How's that for going
out on a limb???


	(P.S.) Also, as far Carlos Baerga is concerned, he shows a lot
of promise at 2nd base. But, I would NOT call his season the greatest
a 2nd baseman has ever had. He does though have a few more years to try
and prove he's the best ever!



GOOOOOOOOOO (FOURTH PLACE) TRIBE!!!!

- Dan
From: paul@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Paul R Krueger)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Gary Sheffield
Date: 30 Sep 1992 16:43:13 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4

In article <19t04lINN91d@email.sp.unisys.com> fhs@email.sp.unisys.com (Fred Sobottka) writes:
>Who did the Brewers get in the Sheffield trade anyway?? 

   Ricky Bones (lots o' potential, not shown yet, but also young). Matt
   Mieske (minor league infielder with some pop in his bat). And I think
   the other guy was Jose Valentin. Don't know much about him. If any one
   of these guys put up even half the numbers that Chef has, I'll be amazed.
   Although Bones has the stuff to be a very good pitcher some day.

   --salty
From: z_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Lighten up!
Date: 5 Oct 92 18:10:52 GMT
Article-I.D.: ccsvax.1992Oct5.121052.1364
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University

In article <1992Oct5.153647.13713@adobe.com>, snichols@adobe.com (Sherri Nichols) writes:
> I personally am rather tired of the whole stats vs. non-stats war.  I'm
> tired of being accused of all sorts of nefarious things, from calling a
> person a "dweeb" (which I honestly don't remember doing), to be insincere
> in my apology, to (horror of horrors) defending another netter.  Look guys,
> this is an open, unmoderated newsgroup.  Anybody can say anything they
> like.  That includes stat heads *and* non stat heads.  You don't like
> what's here, go elsewhere.  If you hang around, you have to expect that
> occasionally, someone's going to say something you don't like.  That's
> simply the nature of the net.

	I don't mind someone disagreeing with me, or having their own opinion.
Its when some people also add "you idiot, you shouldn't be on this newsgroup if
you don't think like me". There is no reason for the rudeness that goes on, and
it is usually started and perpetuated by the statheads, usually involving
something like "I am right, you are wrong, here are 43 pages of advanced
statistics to back me up, so shut up and go home".

Brandon Cope

ps. In the book _Fall_of_Nations_ (?), people being rude to each other as a
matter-of-fact is mentioned as one of the first indications of the demise of a 
culture.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: cs169061@cs.brown.edu (Michael Kalman)
Subject: Re: Inevitable changes
Organization: Brown Computer Science Dept.
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 20:20:15 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.112633.2251@vixvax.mgi.com>, eiswirth@vixvax.mgi.com (Steve Eiswirth) writes:
|> Local (St. Paul-Minneapolis) columnist Pat Reusse has a very interesting piece
|> in the paper today.  The gist of it was the following:
|> 
|> Now that the owner's have their lackey installed as pseudo commish, and the
|> TV contract is coming up for renewal, you can count on the following three
|> network-influenced changes to baseball:
|> 
|> 	1.  Interleague play
|> 	2.  The return of the 156 game schedule
|> 	3.  Wildcard playoff system
|> 
|> My reaction is this: I'm for a very limited (1 series vs. teams from the other
|> league) form of interleague play using home DH-related rules.  There's no
|> denying that this will be interesting to see from a fan's perspective.
|> I also have no problem with the 156 game schedule; over the long haul it will
|> probably put more tension into the pennant races.  Which brings me to my third
|> reaction: I don't want to see baseball lose the integrity of the current
|> playoff system.  Football's playoff system got worse when they went with
|> 3 wildcard teams instead of just 1.  Basketball and hockey are a joke, allowing
|> teams with LOSING records into the playoffs.  Baseball is the one sport with
|> a true champion: if your team can be on top after the grueling regular season,
|> your team has truly accomplished something that it can be proud of.  Sure,
|> allowing only the two other best teams into the playoffs is not that awful.
|> But I feel that once you allow two wildcard teams, pretty soon the 3rd place
|> teams will be whining that they should be included, and before long you end
|> up with a bogus basketball or hockey style playoff system.
|> 
|> Any reactions?


           I couldn't agree more. Adding another tier of playoffs 
would be absurd.  If a team can't win its division over 150+ games, 
it doesn't deserve a chance to win a World Series just because it
got hot over a 2-3 week postseason.
           If the networks want to *lengthen* postseason, they 
could play best of 9 or best of 11 game playoff serieses.  (I think
the WS was briefly best of 9 once upon a time)  At least that would 
force teams to use more pitchers and show some depth.


                                                Michael Kalman
From: shadow@r-node.gts.org (Jay Chu)
Subject: TORONTO BLUE JAYS CLINCHED THE AL EAST!!!!!
Organization: R-node Public Access UNIX Information System (416-249-5366)
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 1992 01:07:24 GMT

The best team in the American League finally clinches the title.  Now it's
time to kill Oakland in 4 games and go on to the World Series.

Because the A's sucks, the Toronto Blue Jays will have little difficulty
winning the American League title.

Congratulations to the Jays in winning the AL EAST.

Great game for Cy Young winner Juan Guzman and MVP Joe Carter!!!


-- 
        ______                shadow@r-node.gts.org
       | |__| |   If it's there and you can see it       - it's real
       |  ()  |   If it's there and you can't see it     - it's transparent
       |______|   If it's not there and you can't see it - you erased it!