HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: franjion@spot.Colorado.EDU (John Franjione)
Subject: Re: Key is a Yankee
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 20:56:30 GMT

dxf12@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas Fowler) writes:

>In a previous article, cazabon@csd.uwo.ca (Yvan Cazabon) says:

>>Just heard on the radio this morning...
>>
>>    Jimmy Key has signed a 4 year contract with the New York Yankees worth 17
>>    million dollars.
>     Anyone else think that, if Key has the season he's capable of (16-10 or
>better, say) and the Yankees don't make any dumb lineup moves, Jim Abbott's
>guaranteed 20-win season is going to lead the Yanks to 2nd place, if not
>first?  Remember, they won 77 or so last year with a poor pitching staff.
>     Abbott replacing their worst starter (bumping the others down a notch)
>gives them at least 6-7 more wins, and Key could provide 4 more.  Better
>offense from some positions, and a 90-win season is well within reach.
>That should put them even with the Jays.  Much as I hate the Yankees, I would
>root for them over the Jays.  I would then hope they will lose in the ALCS.

No question, the Yankees have improved their pitching.  Abbott, Key,
Perez, Militello is a good starting rotation.  Not as good as the
Braves, but pretty darn good.

However, how can you say Abbott is a "guaranteed 20 -win" pitcher?
He's never won 20 before.  The best pitcher in baseball, Roger
Clemens, doesn't even win 20 every year.

If the Yankees had gotten Bonds, I think 90-95 wins would be possible.
But without him, their offense doesn't look to be championship
calibre.  Tartabull is great, O'Neill is good, Nokes is above average,
but that's it.  They'll need expected performances from these 3, plus
good years from Muelens and Mattingly to get to 90 wins.

Of course, I can also see Abbott starting out 1 and 3, followed by
Steinbrenner berating him as a "1-armed freak show" too.

I guess I think the Yankees will go 83-79, third place.

John Franjione
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: snichols@adobe.com (Sherri Nichols)
Subject: Re: Silly Arbitration Question
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 00:34:36 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.205852.20582@infonode.ingr.com> kenney@tribe.b17d.ingr.com writes:
>Do both sides in a salary arbitration hearing know the other sides proposed
>salary ahead of time?

Yes.  The information has also usually been published in the USA Today
prior to the hearings, as well, so that we know what both sides have
proposed.  Negotiations between the two sides can continue after the
submissions, right up to the hearing itself.  

Sherri Nichols
snichols@adobe.com

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: eebonar@sn01.sncc.lsu.edu (Dave Bonar)
Subject: Re: All-Davis team (was Re: All-Name League)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Reply-To: eebonar@sn01.sncc.lsu.edu
Organization: News and Views from LSU
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 21:25:38 GMT
Nntp-Posting-Host-[nntpd-19350]: sn01.sncc.lsu.edu

In article <92350.39541.J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM>, J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes...
>In <1gl1asINNdto@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, Douglas Fowler writes:
> 
>>In a previous article, CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94000) says:
>>     There were about 10 Davis' in the majors about 6 or 7 years back,
>>though I think most of them were pitchers or outfielders.  Still,  an
>>amazing total.  So, I don't think I have to go back in history at all to
>>get:

>>     Alvin (Seattle), Mark (then w/San Diego), Mike (A's - may have been
>>in L.A. by then), Storm (S.D. or Oakland then), Joel (White Sox),
>>Chili (Giants), Glenn (Astros), and a couple others. (Maybe a few September
>>callups boosted it; I know there were a couple others at the same time but
>>I can't think of who they might be.)

>Joel Davis?  I've never heard of him.  I hope he plays 2B or 3B...

	Nope.  He was a pitcher for the White Sox (I'm sure on the pitcher,
fairly sure on the White Sox).

	However, Jody Davis did play at least a game or two at 3b and no
one has brought him up yet.

Dave
__________
Dave Bonar
eebonar@lsuvax.sncc.lsu.edu
__________

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Matt Stairs (was Re: Cordero)
Date: 14 Dec 92 18:06:07 GMT
Organization: McGill University

In article <42528@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> demers@cs.ucsd.edu (David DeMers) writes:
>
>If the Expos dump Wallach and play Stairs at 3B and Cordero
>at SS, Colbrunn at 1B and the OF as is, they will win the
>division (barring injury and a healthy Phillies staff).
>
What sort of fielding experience (at 3B or elsewhere) does Stairs
have in the minors?  I saw him play a couple of games in LF last
year, and he looked like he was born to DH.  Just anecdotal
evidence, I know, so more solid info would be welcome.  I agree
that Wallach has to go.

Tom Box
CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA
From: sweda@css.itd.umich.edu (Sean Sweda)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Women Sports Reporters
Date: 11 Dec 1992 19:08:38 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan ITD Consulting and Support Services
NNTP-Posting-Host: stimpy.css.itd.umich.edu

In article <1992Dec7.185145.5255@athena.mit.edu> cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>They were just asking to have a rat in a box sent to them, right?
>
>psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) responds:
>>Ted you and I both know what would happen if we we to walk in an occupied
>>women's room at our places of employement, at the very least a trip to
>>the police station and probably loss of our jobs.  Considering the consequences
>>ANY man would face given the same circumstances, a rat in a box is the least
>>they should expect.
>
>leaving aside the rat business, which is inexcusable regardless, the analogy
>is not quite correct, because professional baseball is not just another
>place of employment. a better question is: are men reporters allowed into
>professional / semi-professional / whatever women's sports locker rooms
>under the same circumstances as women reporters are allowed into men's?
>that would be equitable. i don't know what the current situation is.
>
>--
>charles

I think the only professional women's sport that has a large media
following would be Tennis.  I don't think either Men's or Women's 
Professional Tennis allows sportswriters in the locker room.  If they
do allow femal reporters in the the Men's locker room for pro-Tennis
then I see no reason to exclude male reporters (or female for that
matter) from the Women's locker room.

(sign me up for an interview with Gabriella Sabatini just out of the shower!)

I don't think that reporters are allowed in the locker rooms of 
non-professional atheletes (e.g. collegiate sports).


-- 
***********************************************************************
Sean Sweda					sweda@css.itd.umich.edu
GM/Owner Motor City Marauders
Internet Baseball League	  "the Red Sox signed Andre Dawson?!?!"
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: mb@cray.com (Maynard Brandt)
Subject: Re: Stupidest rule in baseball (perhaps a new one)
Organization: Cray Research Inc
Date: 14 Dec 92 09:59:59 CST

In article <Bz94GB.1DI@news.cso.uiuc.edu> hbrooks@uiatma.atmos.uiuc.edu (Harold_Brooks) writes:
>In article <1992Dec14.124156.3366@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu> pablo@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Pablo A Iglesias) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec13.092848.370@walter.cray.com> mb@cray.com (Maynard Brandt) writes:
>>>My apologies if this replicates an earlier post.  To me the dumbest rule
>>>has always been:
>>>
>>>With 0 or 1 strikes on a batter, a foul ball is a strike.  However, except
>>>for a bunt, a foul ball with 2 strikes on a batter is *NOT* a strike.
>>>
>>>If it isn't a strike the last time, why should a foul ball ever be included
>>>in the ball-strike count?
>>>
>>>I remember someone commenting on a TV broadcast that at one time foul
>>>balls weren't included in the ball-strike count.  Does anyone on the
>>>net know if this is true or false and, if it is true, when the rule
>>>changed?
>>
>>Yes it was true; Wee Willie Keeler's 44 game hitting streak cam when
>>this rule applied.  I am not sure exactly when it changed, but I believe 
>>that it was before the 20th century.
>
>It changed in 1901 primarily at the instigation of John McGraw over the
>ability of Roy Thomas of the Phillies to foul balls off repeatedly.
>
Umm, isn't that still possible under the current rule?

Obviously, Roy Thomas is the greastest hitter of all time. :)

Did Thomas sue McGraw over this rule change?

Anybody got a good book to recommend on baseball rules changes (I am
especially interested in why the rules were changed) over the years?

Thank you.
-- 
Regards,

Maynard Brandt
Cray Research, Inc.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: jays rotation - improvement in the second half of '92?
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 02:37:12 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.022027.4687@cs.cornell.edu> tedward@cs.cornell.edu (Edward [Ted] Fischer) writes:
>In article <1992Dec11.235620.1529@athena.mit.edu> cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>>
>>PITCHER            W  L  ERA    INN    H   ER   HR   BB   SO
>>morris            21  6 4.04  240.2  222  108   18   80  132
>>stott             12 11 4.50  174.0  175   87   20   63   98
>>stewart           12 10 3.66  199.1  175   81   25   79  130
>>
>>key               13 13 3.53  216.2  205   85   24   59  117
>>
>>
>>even if you look at the overall numbers, key and stewart are pretty
>>similar.
>
>If I were Key, I would resent this comparison.  Key didn't have a
>super-friendly home park like Stewart did.  I expect the park
>difference to add about half a run to Stewart's ERA.  How good does he
>look then?

to be honest, he still looks a lot closer to key than many of
the people who are bitching about signing stewart may have thought,
including me. but your point is well taken. then again, in the second
half stewart's numbers were far better than key's even with the park
adjustment.

>
>>this may not mean anything, but i found it quite interesting.
>>if morris, stott and stewart can put up these numbers over a whole
>>season, the jays may not be in such bad shape after all, esp.
>>considering their offense is without peer in the AL east.
>
>This is true.  They *did* have much better second halves.  But is
>there any reason to believe that they *can* produce like that for a
>full season?  Stottlemyre might.  He's too flaky for me to bother
>trying to predict any more.

i personally think stott should have been "thrown from the bus"
along with billy you-know-who a long time ago, and for the same
reasons. but everyone in toronto is still convinced "this is the
year". talk about turning the other cheek. the "excuse du jour" is
"he was nibbling too much, not challenging the hitters".  in june
it will probably be "oh, he was standing too far to the left on the
mound". i've heard 'em all, but as long as they keep sending him out
there, i'll hope he finally puts it together.

>But Morris and Stewart have had long,
>steady careers.  How much weight should be placed on the last few
>months?

who knows? all i can do is hope. i have already said that i think
their rotation could be better. my post was just a partial
admission that i may have been too harsh. only time will tell.

--
charles
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: dave@snitor.sni.ca (Dave Till)
Subject: Re: Silly Arbitration Question
Organization: Blue Jay Roster Revolving Door Suppliers, Inc.
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 15:06:12 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.003436.28986@adobe.com> snichols@adobe.com (Sherri Nichols) writes:
>>Do both sides in a salary arbitration hearing know the other sides proposed
>>salary ahead of time?
>
>Yes.  The information has also usually been published in the USA Today
>prior to the hearings, as well, so that we know what both sides have
>proposed.  Negotiations between the two sides can continue after the
>submissions, right up to the hearing itself.  

I have always been convinced that some teams use protracted negotiations
as a form of free publicity.

The Blue Jays, in the mid-1980s, specialized in reaching agreements
with unsigned players on the day which their arbitration hearings were
scheduled.  During the weeks leading up to the hearing, both the Jays
and the unsigned player (usually Damaso Garcia) would take turns blasting
each other in the papers:

PLAYER:  "What!  $540,000?  How demeaning!  I am insulted!  I spit upon
your offer!  I wouldn't let my dog accept that!"

TEAM:  "$750,000!  Are you crazy?  You'll bankrupt us!  Our children won't
be able to afford new shoes!  We'll have to water our beer!"

PLAYER:  "You do that already!"

TEAM:  "Details, details.  If necessary, we'll sign five minor-leaguers
who play your position, and send them out in relays!"

PLAYER:  "Your mother wears army boots!"

TEAM:  "So's your old man!"

And so on.  The result:  a new mention of the Jays in the paper every day,
without having to go to the trouble of paying for advertising space.

On the day of the hearings, inevitably, the team and the player would agree
to split the difference.  Everybody would go home happy, and we'd all be
that much closer to the day that pitchers and catchers report for spring
training.

It beat the heck out of watching the Maple Leafs on the tube...

--Dave "when you cross a groundhog with a maple leaf, you
  get six more weeks of lousy hockey" Till
  e-mail address:  dave@silver.sni.ca or dave@snitor.uucp
From: 93jll@williams.edu (Jennifer Lehoczky)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Maddux v Liebrandt
Date: 19 Dec 1992 17:37:20 GMT
Organization: Williams College, Williamstown, MA
NNTP-Posting-Host: hancock.cc.williams.edu

In article <BzDpEM.Lpx@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> scooby@prelude.cc.purdue.edu (Charles Mcwilliams) writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.182318.16238@midway.uchicago.edu>  
>thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>> >Otherwise, their team is pretty much
>> >the same as last year (weak offensively at C, 1B, 2B, SS).

Actually, Jeff Blauser moves to 2b, Chipper Jones (who at this point
is probably the best prospect anywhere in the minors) moves to short
(ETA: Early June).
Suddenly a weakness becomes a strength. Javy Lopez will probably be
weak at C for a year, but should grow into it pretty fast. Ryan Klesko
at 1st.

Those "weak" areas above are covered by some of their best prospects.
Its really quite impressive scouting and management.

And the pitching should carry them through until June or so.

Braves in '93.

Toby Elliott


Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: dorian@engin.umich.edu (Young W Kim)
Subject: Wanted: MLE of some minor league prospects...
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 22:40:27 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

Does anyone have MLE calculations on ex-Met prospects Julian Vasquez and
Jose Martinez, now property of Angels and Marlins respectively? I'm still
trying to get over their loses(I think I'll sue Al Harazin if I bomb on
my finals, you know emotional damage and all 8-))
	Seriously, how can you give away a closer prospect with 95+mph
fastball like Vasquez (guess what we got for him, Dick Schoefield, yeay!)
and a guy who has 5:1 K:BB ration over 160INN and 9+Ks/9INN with +/-40 wins
in the minors in last 2years(i.e. Martinez) for nothing?
	Oh well, I can see that Mets are trying their best to return to 
their 1982, 1983 forms.....*sigh*
	Anyway, posting of above mentioned players' MLE would me appreciated.
Infact, if it's not too much trouble could you email them to me? Thanks in
advance.

					-dorian-

====================================================================
|  If there is anything better   | %Goodbye, and as always, Hello% |
|    Than being the beloved,     |     dorian@engin.umich.edu      |
|    It is being the lover...    |   dorian_kim@um.cc.umich.edu    |
|                 -Anonymous     |    wi.6839@n7kbt.rain.com       |
====================================================================

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: My picks, AL/NL East
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 00:59:31 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.211756.18866@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> cej0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (CHARLES EDWARD JAMES) writes:

>I hate to dissapoint you, but there is no way that the Yankees will{ finish in
>second place.  I can see that the Jays and O's will be up there, but I'm not
>sure about who where, maybe the Jays can repeat? Who knows??  One thing {for
>certain though.  The INDIANS will finish in at least 3rd this year.  They
>haven't lost anyone and their team is just coming into their own.  The SS mess
>will be cleared up.  Likely Fermin will platoon.  Baerga will once again have
>a miraculous season showing the critics that last year wasn't just a career
>year.  Belle is starting to learn how to control his temper more, thus he'll
>be crushing more HR and have a better BA at the end of the year.  Lofton will
>amaze all as he steals over 80 bases and makes his amazing plays in CF.
>Alomar will be back in his ROY form again and hit about .310-.325 and be on
>base for the top of the order to drive him in.

I have to disagree.  I hate the Yankees as much as anyone, but I think
what was lost in all the "look who the Yankees didn't get" disappointment 
was who they *did* get.  

Their pitching should actually be *good* now -- Key and Abbott should
help a lot.  Actually, Key probably not that much, since they had several
good prospects, but he's more likely to succeed *this* year than any one
of them.

Their offense isn't great; especially trading Kelly for O'Neill.  But
they'll actually have a third baseman who can get on base now.  They've
got so many middle infielders that *some* of them have to be good.
They lost Mel Hall (big deal), but are going to use Bernie Williams in
his spot anyway.  Plus, Maas, who's probably better than Hall, will get
more PT.  Nokes and Mattingly aren't awful.  Tartabull is great.

As for Cleveland, I don't see it.  I know they've got all these great
prospects, but...  Alomar isn't anything special.  He wasn't in his
Rookie of the Year year, and he isn't going to be either.  Lofton is
okay, but not great, and I don't see him as improving on last year.
They haven't figured out which of their outfielders can play (Mark
Whiten) and which can't (Thomas Howard!, Glenallen Hill.)  I do like Belle
a lot, but his BA isn't going to improve because his temper did.

And they think Bob Ojeda is their #2 starter.  'Nuff said.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Is it too early to start making predictions for 1993?
niepornt@phoenix.    | Probably, but that never stopped me before.
   princeton.edu     | ALE: Baltimore ALW: Chicago NLE: Montreal NLW: Atlanta
Baltimore Orioles 93 | AL MVP: Cal Ripken  AL Cy Young: Mike Mussina
From: dkl@cs.arizona.edu (David K. Lowenthal)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Maddux v Liebrandt
Date: 16 Dec 92 21:21:26 GMT
Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson

In article <1992Dec16.182318.16238@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>The team that is really improved is
>>Cincinnati.  
>
>Really?  Who do they have at catcher?  Hal Morris is only marginally
>better than Bream/Hunter.  Bill Doran's below average these days.  Paul
>O'Neill was worse than below average the last four months of the season.
>Kevin Mitchell's a question mark (though if he explodes, which he's
>capable of, look out.  still, he's going to be 31.  i'd rather have
>Keith Mitchell.)  And Sabo's coming back from a poor season and off-season
>surgery.

You might want to get your facts straight before posting.  The Reds
catcher is Joe Oliver, admittedly not Johnny Bench, but in a normal year
is better than Greg Olson.  Hal Morris had an injury plagued season last
year, but is certainly better than Bream/Hunter.  Bill Doran is not the
2nd baseman, Bip is now the regular 2nd baseman.  Paul O'Neill is a
Yankee.  

Note I am not saying the Reds will win the West.  But their everyday lineup
is better than the Braves (unfortunately pitching is a disaster).

--dave

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: roney@selkirk.sfu.ca (Chris J. Roney)
Subject: Re: My picks, AL/NL East
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 00:46:53 GMT

gajarsky@pilot.njin.net (Bob Gajarsky - Hobokenite) writes:

>A.L. East

>1) Baltimore 

   It pains me to say it (as a Jays fan) but I agree - the Orioles
look pretty solid to me too.

>2) New York 

   Yeah, it pains me even more, but I might have to agree here, too.

>3) Toronto - The Roger Maynard pick.  Toronto has the most players on winning 
>World Series teams.  They also have a pitching staff that's crumbling.  Will 
>Guzman repeat his solid performance?  I think so.  Will Ward replace Henke?  I 
>think so.  But their #2 pitcher (Morris) should be a #4, their #3 (Stewart) should 
>be a #5, Stottlemeyer and Hentgen don't set my world on fire, and who will 
>replace Ward?  Eichorn?  Homey, I don't think so.  I'd pick them higher if they 
>put Delgado behind the plate, Domingo Martinez at third (where the loss of 
>Gruber will help them), and DeLaRosa and Bell in the outfield. Alomar and 
>Olerud will improve, but it won't be enough.  Molitor is a good pickup, however.  
>And Gaston is NOT a good manager.  See, I'm a dork.

     I agree with all except the part about moving D. Martinez to
third.  I also don't think the Orioles would benefit from moving Glenn
Davis to third - in other words, I just can't see a first baseman,
even one with a good glove, helping you at third.  Hentgen MIGHT be
okay, but I still need to be convinced.  I really think they blew it
signing Stewart instead of Key.  I agree with you about Molitor, and
basically, about Cito (add me to the dork list too, I guess). Right
now they have question marks at left field, third base, and short, and
a pretty shaky starting rotation (downgrade to pathetic if Guzman has
any more arm trouble).   Add it up, and it looks to me like a fight
with the Yankees for second (or maybe even with someone for fourth, if
the feared Guzman arm-problem scenario happens).  

-- 
Chris Roney  (e-mail chris_roney@sfu.ca)
From: rickert@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (John H. Rickert)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Mattingly discussion, take 2.
Date: 19 Dec 1992 00:21:42 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department at Rose-Hulman
Reply-To: rickert@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (John H. Rickert)
NNTP-Posting-Host: g215a-1.nextwork.rose-hulman.edu

In article <1992Dec18.172048.18109@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu>  
akamholz@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Andrew E Kamholz) writes:
> In article <92352.051418RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu> <RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu>  
writes:
> Have you guys who continually knock Mattingly's defensive skills SEEN
> HIM PLAY? I have.
So have I. I've also *watched* him play.

> When I get a chance, I will post Mattingly's numbers on hitting with men
> on base. Elias has it. He is incredible- way above average. Some Yankee

hmm.. 1984-1991 BA/OB/SLG;
Totals: .316/.362/.497
MOB:    .324/.378/.504

Since the numbers usually rise with MOB (is that an example of MOB-rule?)
I wouldn't claim that these are 'way above average'.

> people attribute Don's shortcomings the last few years to the fact that
> there hasn't been anyone on base for him. There hasn't been anyone on base
> for him since he drove in 145 in '85. Believe me (Why not?); he WILL cash  
in.

Last year he had 176 AB+BB with RISP - a moderately high number.
(I have a list somewhere I hope to post it when I get back from Wisconsin)
He was up a bit with RISP last year (.313/.363/.469) but I'm 
not convinced that this wasn't random fluctuation
(esp. given his numbers over the previous years:
1991: .298/386/.404, 1984-1991: .321/.392/.504)

john rickert
rickert@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu
looking for my RISPABBB list...