HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kimmel@epx.cis.umn.edu (Eric Kimmel)
Subject: Re: Twins/Bo-Sox Game-8.......7/23/92 evening game
Organization: University of Minnesota
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 13:41:43 GMT

In article <19314@plains.NoDak.edu> sivaram@plains.NoDak.edu (Sivaram Hariharan ) writes:
>Game-9 which promised some good pitching battle between the
>Rocket and Erickson was washed out today and a double header
>(games 8 & 9) will be held tomorrow.
>
>With great dissappointment, I switched the TV off.......
>
But then you realize that both games are on TV today.  I couldn't think of
a better way to spend a Friday evening than to take the portable TV outside
and watch a few games!
>
>S.H
>Forever a Twins fan....

-Rick
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: mjw@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Michael Wolverton)
Subject: Re: Support-Neutral W/L Report -- NL
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 20:42:27 GMT


In article <1992Jul23.180727.1114@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>You say the figures are park-adjusted, but I can't help but notice that
>Atlanta and Chicago are at one end of the spectrum, and Houston, LA, and
>SF are at the other...

You see somewhat the same effect in the American League, with
Minnesota and Boston on top, and Detroit and Oakland on the bottom.
So this would suggest that maybe the park adjustments are too extreme.
I'm always suspicious of park adjustments whenever I see this kind of
effect in lists.  I remember noticing that something like 35 out of
the top 50 seasons, and 65 of the top 100 seasons, in Adjusted
Pitching Runs (the table I saw was in "The Hidden Game of Baseball")
occurred in hitters parks.  Thorn and Palmer look at effects like that
and conclude that teams in hitters parks worry too much about getting
good pitching, and vice-versa.  Maybe, but I think it may have
something to with the park effects themselves.  I think it's possible
that a great season is just a great season, and changing parks
wouldn't change the numbers that much.

But having said that, I think that the effect you noticed is just due
to Atlanta and Chicago being good, and the other three being bad.
Reason #1: they line up approximately the same way even when looking
at *unadjusted* numbers.  Reason #2: Look at the teams.  Atlanta's
starting pitching this year is so good it's scary, and Chicago has a
guy who's doing his best to lap the field in the Cy Young race.
Meanwhile, LA is trotting out washed-up guys like Martinez, Ojeda,
Gross and (apparently) Hershiser, Houston has shown up with their
usual collection of nobodies, and San Francisco has (aside from Swift
and *maybe* Wilson) the biggest collection of young non-prospects this
side of Houston.  The parks make them a *little* worse, but these
staffs are bad all by themselves.  Reason #3: the Mets, with the
biggest park-adjustment of all, are right in the middle, and may make
a charge for the top if Gooden stays out for a while.

The same arguments apply to the AL.

-Michael
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Wolverton                       "Is that clear?"
mjw@cs.stanford.edu                     "No, but it's consistent!"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ccastmm@prism.gatech.EDU (Mike Marler)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Braves news
Date: 31 Jul 92 16:20:03 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In <64662@hydra.gatech.EDU> tmiller@prism.gatech.EDU (Thomas Miller) writes:

>  The bad news:  5th starter Mike Bielecki is out for the remainder
>of the season with a torn elbow ligament.

He is having surgery today and is definitely out until next year.  Real
shame for him; since, he had been doing quite well this year.  He said
that he felt his elbow "pop" when he threw a fork ball in the 3rd inning
of the an Astro's game.  He then pitched the 4th and got 2 K's before
taking himself out of the game (loved that Glavine whiffing at those
2 high inside corner fastballs from Harnish(sp) during his pinch hit
appearence).  Bielicki decided to "have his elbow rebuilt" instead of
a "quick fix" and short rehab and the hope that he might be back by
late season.

>Pete Smith has been called up from AAA Richmond to replace him.

Hope to see him pitch soon.  He might be able to pitch long relief also.

Additionally, today is "D-day".  Deion has to decide "what to do with his
life" (well the rest of this year at least) and let the Braves know by
this afternoon.  He has told no one what his plans are; so, everyone
gets a surprise.  My guess: 1) Deion takes a plane to Atlanta after
tonight's game, 2) he loads the goodies and leaves for a Florida
fishing trip (has both of the last two seasons - just ignore those
fines for reporting late), and 3) he shows up at the Falcon's
training camp in the middle to end of next week.  With his hand problem
I would not expect to win a game deciding homer in his last game like
he did in his last Braves game before reporting for football.

Don't look now.  The Padres is looking hungry and on the doorstep.

loads what
-- 

Mike Marler                        | "Saving every nickel to spend on my
Internet: ccastmm@prism.gatech.edu |  my next set of thrills..." -somebody
Disclaimer: These views are not and should not be viewed as those of OIT.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: claudius@leland.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu)
Subject: Re: Simulation Games
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 16:19:54 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.124417.29099@cs.tulane.edu> eebonar@sn01.sncc.lsu.edu writes:
>	Since I haven't played PTP and have not played Strat in about two
>years; what are the relief pitching rules in both?

Strat does this:

Each reliever is given a numberic rating for his relief fatigue, from 1-4.
A reliever can pitch that number innings and be able to pitch the next day.
A reliever can never pitch three days in a row.  If you pitch more than your
fatigue rating, you must rest the number of days you exceed your rating.  For
example, if you are a 3, and you pitch 5 innings, you must rest 2 days.

PTP does this:

Each reliever is given a rating, Closer, Short, or Long.  I'll include the
rest chart below:

Long:
IP	Rest
0-2	0*
2.1-3	1
3.1-4	2
4.1-5	3
over 5	4

Short:
IP	Rest
0-1	0**
1.1-2	0*
2.1-3	1
3.1-4	2
4.1-5	3

Closer:
0-0.2	0**
1-1.1	0*
1.2-2	1
2.1-2.2	2
3	3

* cannot pitch more than two consecutive days
** cannot pitch more than three consecutive days

Short relievers may not pitch over 5 innings, and closer relievers may not
pitch over 3 innings, unless no other reliever is available.  If forced to
pitch over their limit, they need 4-day rest.

The Closer rating is absurd, and they used to have just Long and Short, which
worked pretty well.

===============================================================================
GO CALIFORNIA ANGELS!
Committee to Elect Johnny Ray as Angels Second Baseman
Committee to Elect Mike Witt as Angels Ace
Committee to Elect Cookie Rojas as Angels Manager
===============================================================================
Nelson Lu (claudius@leland.stanford.edu)
Newsgroups: tim@normal.georgetown.edu,rec.sport.baseball
From: jep@plex-1.ann-arbor.mi.us (John E. Perry Jr.)
Subject: Re: Who Replaced Ernie? (Tiger Announcers)
Organization: Plex-1, Michigan's Public Access Usenet Gateway  (Ann Arbor).
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 05:00:53 GMT

>The Tigers managed to pry Rick ("That's a major league play by Omar Vizquel!")
>Rizzs away from the Mariners.  As to how they might differ, I'd have to assume
>that Ernie Harwell acted as if he had seen a baseball game before.  Rizzs
>has a nice voice, but that's about it.
>
Rick Rizzs works with Bob Rathbun.  The two sound very much alike.  Both
get very excited about the most normal of plays.  Whereas you could trust
Ernie Harwell and Paul Carey to raise the pitch of their voice only during
an exciting play, thus providing a valuable aid for the non-serious
listener, Rick and Bob enthuse over every other play regardless of merit.

I think every Tiger fan misses Ernie and Paul, but life goes on.
From: snichols@adobe.com (Sherri Nichols)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Rocket Roger, Enfant Terrible
Date: 29 Jul 92 01:41:01 GMT
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated

In article <Bs455q.Jpt@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> peppler@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Randy Peppler) writes:
>In article <1992Jul28.160020.16072@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> g_waugaman@nac.enet.dec.com (Glenn R. Waugaman) writes:
>>I don't see anything particularly unusual about Clemens' behavior when you
>>measure it against that of most baseball players......
>
>
>	This arguement reminds me of how Bob Knight can do no wrong
>	in the eyes of the typical Hoosier.  The end justifies the
>	means...

Well, while Glenn is definitely a Red Sox fan, I am not particularly a Red
Sox fan (though I don't dislike them intensely), and I agree with Glenn:  I
don't see anything particularly unusual about Clemens' behavior when you
measure it against that of most professional athletes.  

Yes, he cursed and threw hamburger buns.  What did you expect him to do,
write a withering letter to the editor?

>	Someone mentioned that Clemens is the best pitcher in baseball.
>	Is he really still?  I think he's slipping (at least that's
>	a perception - I'm sure some numbers will prove me wrong)...

Clemens has a 2.18 ERA in 156.2 innings, allowing 117 hits, 40 walks, and
striking out 131, averaging 7 2/3 innings per start, while pitching his
home games in hitter-friendly Fenway park.  If that's slipping, I'd like
some more of it.

Only Guzman of Toronto (2.03 ERA, 137.1 IP, 92 H, 50 W, 133 Ks, 6 2/3
IP/start) and Appier of KC (2.12 ERA, 152.2 IP, 117 H, 43 W, 104 Ks, just
under 7 1/3 IP/start) are comparable this year in the AL, and given the DH
effect, no one is comparable in the NL.  Given that Rocket Roger has been
performing at this level for quite a few years now, and Appier and Guzman
haven't, I have no problem with the claim that Clemens is still the best
pitcher in baseball.

Sherri Nichols
snichols@adobe.com
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Who Replaced Ernie? (Tiger Announcers)
From: tim@normal.georgetown.edu (Tim Snyder)
Date: 27 Jul 92 13:15:58 -0400
Followup-To: tim@normal.georgetown.edu,rec.sport.baseball
Distribution: world
Organization: Georgetown University, Washington DC

We all lamented the replacement of the greatest announcer (I have)
ever heard, Ernie Harwell.  Since I am out of town, I have not heard
the replacement(s).

Who are they, and how good are they?  How do they differ from Ernie?

Thanks,

 Timothy Law Snyder
 Department of Computer Science
 Reiss 225
 Georgetown University
 Washington, DC 20057

tim@normal.georgetown.edu
(202) 687-6208

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: twromero@McRCIM.McGill.EDU (Michael Lin)
Subject: Re: luck in baseball
Originator: twromero@fangorn.mcrcim.mcgill.edu
Organization: McGill Research Centre for  Intelligent Machines
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 22:48:53 GMT


In article <19734@optima.cs.arizona.edu>, dkl@cs.arizona.edu (David K. Lowenthal) writes:
|> I have a real problem with some comments made on this newsgroup about
|> luck.  I have not read them all, but Ms. Nichols especially continually
|> talks about how luck enters in to one run games, world series play, etc.
|> 
|> Well, I do not believe in luck in baseball, because the game is based
|> on skill.  I now explain a few scenarios mentioned often:
|> 
|> 
|> 2) Intangibles are luck.
|> 
|> Response: NO, that is not luck.  Intangibles are things like managerial
|> moves and team drive.  You are telling me that if you took 2 equal teams
|> and had Tony LaRussa manage one and someone that knows nothing about baseball
|> managed that other, that when LaRussa's team performed better that would be
|> luck?
|> 
   But if, maybe a BIG if, but if LaRussa's team were to lose to this 
   someone else who knows nothing about baseball (unlikely, but possible!),
   and somehow he made some weird moves like putting a potential best hitter
   in the 9th spot and he then proceeds to hit a game winning hit, 
   I bet you won't be saying that it is this someone else's managing skills
   (the intangiles in your words), I wonder if you would call it "luck".

===> SO, you do not believe luck in baseball, eh??

   Ever heard of the term, "It's better to be lucky than good!"

   Think about it, luck DOES play an important part in ANY sport.

Sorry, I can't help but throw in my 2 cents.

Michael

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: rickert@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (John H. Rickert)
Subject: ease of RBI (was: Re: RP/PA for AL and NL (More bogus RP stats))
Organization: Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 19:52:15 GMT


In article <5064@transfer.stratus.com> dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan  
Swartzendruber) writes:
> In article <1992Jul22.195142.10078@cs.rose-hulman.edu>,  
rickert@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (John H. Rickert) writes:
> > I seem to recall that 2out RBI from 3rdbase were more difficult,
> > but that 2 out RBI from 1st and 2nd base were easier.
> 
> This seems backward to me.  With two outs, the guy at third can score on
> just about any kind of hit, which is certainly not true for a runner at
> first with two outs.

Sorry. I didn't make myself at all clear here.
What I attempted to claim was:
RBI% for runner on 3b with <2 outs is greater than
RBI% for runner on 3b with 2 outs.

RBI% for runners on 2b with <2 outs is less than
RBI% for runners on 2b with 2 outs.

RBI% for runners on 1b with <2 outs is less than
RBI% for runners on 1b with 2 outs.

> > I'll see if I can remember to find the numbers.

geez. I didn't state my guess cleary *and* I forgot to look up the 
numbers. TGIR( = TGIAF)

john rickert
rickert@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: claudius@leland.stanford.edu (Nelson Lu)
Subject: RC/27 for 3Bs
Organization: DSG, Stanford University
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 18:44:14 GMT

NATIONAL LEAGUE
Gary Sheffield, San Diego	8.40
Ken Caminiti, Houston		7.20
Dave Magadan, New York		6.35
Dave Hollins, Philadelphia	5.91
Terry Pendleton, Atlanta	5.53
Todd Zeile, St. Louis		5.05
Steve Buechele, Chicago		4.88
Chris Sabo, Cincinnati		4.77
Bret Barberie, Montreal		4.34
Matt Williams, San Francisco	3.68
Tim Wallach, Montreal		3.60
Dave Hansen, Los Angeles	3.49

AMERICAN LEAGUE
Edgar Martinez, Seattle		8.84
Robin Ventura, Chicago		6.28
Leo Gomez, Baltimore		5.95
Wade Boggs, Boston		5.68
Dean Palmer, Texas		5.31
Kevin Seitzer, Milwaukee	5.04
Gregg Jefferies, Kansas City	4.98
Jeff Kent, Toronto		4.73
Carney Lansford, Oakland	4.62
Scott Livingstone, Detroit	4.25
Scott Leius, Minnesota		4.20
Brook Jacoby, Cleveland		4.19
Charlie Hayes, New York		3.78
Kelly Gruber, Toronto		3.36
Gary Gaetti, California		3.25

===============================================================================
GO CALIFORNIA ANGELS!
Committee to Elect Johnny Ray as Angels Second Baseman
Committee to Elect Mike Witt as Angels Ace
Committee to Elect Cookie Rojas as Angels Manager
===============================================================================
Nelson Lu (claudius@leland.stanford.edu)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: bogreen@council.chspr.ubc.ca (Bo Green)
Subject: re: Taking Third
Reply-To: bogreen@unixg.ubc.ca
Organization: Centre for Health Services & Policy Res.
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 23:17:58 GMT

Attempting to steal third is sometimes a good move, even with two out.
Consider the usual factors for base stealing.

  1) speed of baserunner
  2) speed of delivery of pitcher and control
  3) catcher's arm
  4) count

Even if these factors are in your favor, what's the advantage of a runner 
at third with two out? Especially a fast runner? It seems selfish and not
team spirited, doesn't it (even Rickey-ish).

Not always.

If there is a guy on the mound who relies on a hard breaker or forkball as
his "out" pitch, you want to get the guy to third to put pressure on the pitcher
to keep his breaker out of the dirt, and give the hitter an advantage. If he
throws one in the dirt, you can score on a wild pitch. If he hangs one, your
hitter whacks it. If the pitcher is going good, anything to throw him off is
good for the team.

Bo Green (bo!bo!bo!)                      Internet: bogreen@unixg.ubc.ca
Programmer/Analyst                        Bitnet: USERJIK@UBCMTSG
Centre For Health Services and Policy Research
University of British Columbia, Vancouver CANADA
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: rdetweil@hpbs1026.boi.hp.com (Richard Detweiler)
Subject: Re: PAST WORLD SERIES WINNERS
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 19:06:10 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Boise Printer Division
Keywords:  Go Redbirds!

>Here's the list of World Series participants
>(winners denoted by '*') since 1903, the first series.
>
>YEAR   American				    National
>___________________________________________________________________________
>1934   Detroit Tigers			    St. Louis Cardinals

What, nobody won???
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: rstimets@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (robert and stimets)
Subject: Re: Ruling Question
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 21:16:06 GMT

The question of the day concerned a line drive that hits an umpire, then
deflects to a fielder who "catches" the ball (I assume before it touches the
ground, but note the "quotes")

The result of the play is a function of where the umpire and the fielders were:
If the ball touches an umpire in fair territory before it passes an infielder,
except the pitcher, or it passes an infielder but in the umpire's judgment
another infielder could have made a play on the ball, then the ball is immediately
dead, awardthe batter first base, runners advance if forced, score it a hit.
If a fair ball touches the umpire after passing an infielder and
ITUJ there is no other play, then the ball is live, but no "catch" is possible.
Of course, if a foul ball touches an umpire then the ball is dead, foul ball.

RStimets
From: ccastmm@prism.gatech.EDU (Mike Marler)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Noooooooooo!!!!!!
Date: 22 Jul 92 17:53:44 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In <1992Jul22.033309.27982@news.nd.edu> jortiz@thomas.helios.nd.edu (The Candyman) writes:

>The Braves traded the immortal Juan Berenguer for
                       ^^^^^^^ :-) :-) :-)!!!
>Mark Davis'$$$ contract.  Apparently John Schuerholz
>still believes in the 1989 N.L. Cy Young award
>winner.  I don't.  Even though I'm not into stats,

What is "the word"(TM) on Davis?  Damaged goods?  Bad Attitude?
Wrong City?  Lack of chances?  Too old?
Come on you guys in KC.  And, oh yea you got guys just saved
some money for a nice flat-fastball-rightie.  Thank you.

>Something else bugs me, and bugs me even more than
>the stats:  his huge contract.  I know that the
>Braves have a very low payroll, still, do they
>have to honor his contract?  I know key players
>are years from free agency, but shouldn't the 
>management start planning (i.e. saving) for when 
>the Tom Glavines, John Smoltzs and Ronnie Gants 
>are eligible to file for free agency?

He is now has the highest yearly salary of all the Braves.
You can definitely add David Justice (he was PO'ed at Spring
Training and did not hesitate showing it) and Steve Avery
to your list.

>This is a big gamble for Shuerholz, the Braves
>need to solidify a struggling bullpen, but it
>seems counter-intuitive to do so with a struggling pitcher.

If Cox follows form he is put him in the first middle relief
chance that comes along.  Now lets sit back and watch the
Mecker/Stanton situation for the closing lefties.

>I'll keep my fingers crossed.  I first didn't like
>the Berryhill-Bielecki trade either, now I love

The Braves have Peter Smith in the wings for when Bielecki
has problems and he has not.  Saw in this morning paper
that Bielecki pitched last night - must be over his "slight"
injury.


Lets go for 11 in a row!! (Say what?  The Bucs are coming to visit
for the weekend.  Better get to the game early kids!!)



-- 

Mike Marler                        | "Saving every nickel to spend on my
Internet: ccastmm@prism.gatech.edu |  my next set of thrills..." -somebody
Disclaimer: These views are not and should not be viewed as those of OIT.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: phhill@sn01.sncc.lsu.edu (ROBERT HILL)
Subject: Re: Mock NL Expansion Draft (Long)
Nntp-Posting-Host-[nntpd-23677]: sn01.sncc.lsu.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Reply-To: phhill@sn01.sncc.lsu.edu
Organization: The unofficial LSU news node
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 00:03:54 GMT

In article <27JUL199215251009@pierre.mit.edu>, kettler@pierre.mit.edu 
(KETTLER, THOMAS R.) writes...
> 
>1. Tim Wallach was not listed among the protected Montreal Expos. Assuming he 
>is not traded, he would have to be protected. This is because he is a 10/5 guy 
>and all 10/5 players must be protected. Although Dennis Martinez would be 
>protected anyway by Montreal, he also must be protected for the same reason. 
>This means that Archi Cianfrocco is likely to be left unprotected relative to 
>the other 14 Expo players. I have not checked to see how many other 10/5 
>players were not listed as protected on other teams, however.

     I think the Expos will release Wallach before protecting him, which is 
why he doesn't appear on a projected Expo protected list. Certainly, if I 
was GM, that's what I would do. I doubt the expansion teams will have much
interest in him anyway.
     I think the Expos were going to try and peddle Wallach to a contender
for the pennant stretch if they weren't in the race themselves.  I think 
they should do it anyway, but I doubt it will happen now unless they really
go into a tailspin. Of course, what little value Wallach might have had 
has essentially evaporated with his performance this year.  They should 
have tried to make the trade at the start of the season when there might 
have been a few teams foolish enough to give something up for him.

Bob

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball