HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Mattingly discussion, take 2.
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 23:28:09 GMT

In article <Dec.18.16.28.53.1992.14511@pilot.njin.net> gajarsky@pilot.njin.net (Bob Gajarsky - Hobokenite) writes:
>akamholz@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Andrew E Kamholz) writes:
>>At worst, he'll hit .280; At best, he'll hit .350; realistically, if
>>he is finally healthy, he'll hit around .310. None of these figures is
>>that bad for a third place hitter, especially one who has a great career
>>average with men on base.

Chyeah, right. 

Mattingly hasn't seen .350 in six years.  He hasn't seen .310 in four years.
Two-eighty is a good guess for what he'll see this year.  With low power,
and less than 40 walks.  I think an upside for Mattingly is what he did
in 1992.  As mediocre as 1992 was, I'll be surprised if he ever has another
season like it.  It was his best season since 1989.  He'll be 32. 

At worst, he'll hit .250 with 5 HR.

> but they ARE bad numbers for a third hitter, especially when he doesn't
> walk, has limited doubles power, and for a third hitter (or first
> baseman) , absolutely awful power.  if you look at the first
> baseman in the american league, the only ones who had worse offensive numbers
> than mattingly last year - hmm.  i'm doing this from memory.  maybe boston,
> maybe california.  maybe milwaukee.  maybe seattle.  the reason i saay 
> maybe is because i don't remember who was the firs tbaseman, or their
> stats.  

In 1992, Mattingly did worse than Fielder, McGwire, Olerud, Palmeiro,
Sorrento, and Thomas.  He did a little worse than Milligan, and a little
better than Vaughn and Tino Martinez.  In other words, he was about the
seventh to tenth best first-baseman in the AL.  In 1991, he was about
tenth-best, and only because McGwire had a miserable season.  He
was probably pretty close to dead worst first baseman in the League in
1990.  That's just as a first baseman.  As a #3 hitter, he's about 75 OPS
below average for the AL.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
From: peirick_j@wums.wustl.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: A new slant on Barry Bonds' uniform number
Date: 14 DEC 92 08:05:08 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER
NNTP-Posting-Host: msnews.wustl.edu

Since no one else has mentioned this angle on the long and sordid thread on
Barry Bonds and his uniform number, I'll pitch in kind of late.

I think that it is simply a practical matter that Barry Bonds cannot wear a
retired number.  Picture this:  Barry Bonds wears number 24.  He then goes
on to be a simply outstanding player for something like 15 years in SF.  He
breaks club records, he breaks league records, he looks like a shoo-in for
the Hall of Fame.  If this should happen, the Giants are placed in the un-
comfortable position of having to retire a number _twice_.  This is quite
unseemly, in my opinion.  By having Barry Bonds wear an unretired number the
Giants are leaving open the possibility that they may someday retire _his_
number.

Just a lucid thought...

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Go Kelly Go
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 16:49:25 GMT

In article <1992Dec10.143509.1@vaxa.strath.ac.uk> clgs11@vaxa.strath.ac.uk writes:
>
>You guys make me sick.....All you are saying is " lets get rid of GREAT defense
>
>and to hell with who we replace it with. I'd like to wish Kelly Gruber all the
>
>best with his new club and you guys can go to hell !!!!!!!!
>

In the last week in Toronto, both Devon White and Jimmy Key basically
trashed Kelly Gruber in the media openly, and Dave Winfield purposely
avoided answering questions about Gruber.

It seems both management and his teammates (and ex-teammates) had
basically had enough of Gruber.

Gerald

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: tedward@cs.cornell.edu (Edward [Ted] Fischer)
Subject: Re: Giants and Bonds - a $43 million mistake?
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 18:46:57 GMT

In article <92345.190403COP80196@UCF1VM.BITNET> Bill Laird <COP80196@UCF1VM.BITNET> writes:
>
>Sure, but when you can pick up a closer and a pretty decent pitcher for the
>price of a Barry Bonds and maybe have a little bit leftover, you should be
>considering all options.

You are kidding yourself.  I think you said you wanted Stewart?  Okay,
so Stewart is getting $4 million plus.  Add another $4 million for
Myers, and you are *over* what the Giants are paying for Bonds.

Now Bonds last year was worth almost 80 runs over the *average* hitter
Replace one of the scrubs that the Giants have been running out there
with Bonds, and you might have seen as much as a 10 game improvement!

Stewart, at this point in his career, is no more than an average
pitcher.  You have lots of average (or slightly below average)
pitchers hanging around.  Whatever would you do with one more?  And 
while Myers would be an improvement over Jackson, he wouldn't help
*that* much.

The Giants need to solidfy their rotation.  They gave starts to
*14* different pitchers last year.  But that's as much the fault of
the management as it is the fault of the pitchers.  Only Burkett
managed to stay healthy for the entire year in the rotation.

Do the Giants have any pitching prospects?  Generally younger pitchers
can be counted on for innings.  If they can find just one or two 200
inning pitchers, they will have a decent staff.  Okay, so Stewart might
(or might not) have helped here.  But he's getting old too...

>I hope things work out well. Expect to see lots of football score like games

:-) The team was awful last year.  Improving the pitching would not
have been enough.  Bonds helps the offense a lot, leaving them with
one fewer glaring holes.  Now if they can find a few young arms, they
are set...

-Valentine
From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Phil Plantier traded, Boggs out the door?
Date: 15 Dec 1992 20:02:56 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: gondolin.pubs.stratus.com

In article <39k22!f@rpi.edu> tracyj@hall103.its.rpi.edu (Jeffrey  
Allan Tracy) writes:
> As a loyal fan of the Red Sox, I have put up with everything from  
losing the
> World Series in '86, which, by the way, was the fault of one Bob  
Stanley, not
> Bill Buckner as most of you in the baseball world like to think, to  
finishing
> in dead last place this year.  But this has to be the dumbest thing  
that Lou
> Gorman has ever conjured up in his life.  Jose Melendez?  He is an  
old nobody.
> Phil Plantier was the darling of the Red Sox, their ray of hope for  
the future,
> and now he is gone.  Last year he had a poor season because of an  
ailing elbow,
> but that is taken care of now.  

I agree here. I think they made a big mistake in getting rid of
Plantier.

This has to be as bright as the way that the 
> Red Sox are treating Wade Boggs.  One bad year, and the Red Sox  
completly give
> up on their players.  

I think it was much more than the bad year.  There have been
several problems. First of all, they offered a very good deal to
Boggs at the start of the season, but he turned them down.
Boggs had a bad season, and at his age they can't count on him
having that big a turn around next season. But, by and large, I
think the death knell for Boggs was the tiff with Clemens, when
Boggs, as usual only thinking of himself, went to the official
scorer to have an error he was credited with changed to a hit.
This, on top of other such actions in the past ("What, you
expect me to follow those hit and run signs the coaches give?
Not me. Let those runners be caught dead before I take a
chance at hurting MY batting average."), was the last straw.

Wade and Roger are the Red Sox, and I hope that the Red
> Sox realize this before it is too late, which it may already be.  I  
wish Phil 
> the best of of luck in his new home.  

Roger, on the other hand, is the true heart of the current team.
Any day now, I expect to wake up to hear that the local equivalent
of the village idiot (Lou Gorman) has traded him, probably one
up for Joe Carter.

And Wade, he will always be in the 
> hearts of all Red Sox fans, whether or not he stays in Boston.  I  
love the Red 
> Sox, but is the 1993 team really going to be the Red Sox?
> Keep Wade, if you can treat him right!
> Bring back Bruce Hurst!(hint)
> Dwight Evans, manager!(hint#2)

I always liked Evans, but Dan Shaugnessey notes that, while he
was popular with the fans, Evans was not so popular with many
of the players. Also, you compain about greed: Evans was one
of the players who spoke out most loudly about giving trainers and
club house staff any partial world series share.

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

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Organization: University of Central Florida--Computer Services
Date: Tuesday, 15 Dec 1992 23:27:38 EST
From: Bill Laird <COP80196@UCF1VM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Giants rumored to name Dusty Baker mgr.

I am very turned off by the new ownership group for the San Francisco
Giants. They have already made several really (and I mean really) bad
moves. To top off letting Roger Craig go, there are rumors that they
will be trading Matt Williams to the Yankees. Well, at least I've got
the Marlins to look forward to!

Anyway, kudos to Dusty Baker. I think he will be a fine manager. But there
has been quite a bit of Craig bashing on the net that I want to respond to.

How soon Giants fans forget the 1980's. I don't think there is a baseball
fan out there that would say that the two Giants teams that won the division
were the best team in the running. The Giants managed to win both years
by the seat of their pants. Look at the 1989 season, the year of the big
earthquake during the world series. The Giants had 'Big Daddy' Rich
Rueschel as their star pitcher. Offense was mediocre, featuring outfielders
Candy Maldonado and Jeffery Leonard - legends in their own minds.

Plain and simple, the Giants shouldn't have been there, but they were. Roger
Craig was the reason they were there. Enough said..

Bill
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: tedward@cs.cornell.edu (Edward [Ted] Fischer)
Subject: Re: Braves land Maddox !!
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 17:58:09 GMT

In article <steph.724023315@perseus.cs.uiuc.edu> steph@perseus.cs.uiuc.edu (Dale Stephenson) writes:
>
>The Braves have good position prospects at every position.
>
>I'm thrilled.  "The future's so bright, I gotta wear shades."
>"Build the best team possible.  Ted Turner's money is no object."

Huh?  Ted Turner is making money hand over foot off of the Braves.  He
spent a bit on Maddux, but freed up salary from a couple other
players.

Meanwhile, the Braves have the following top-level prospects:

Klesko looks good at 1B, despite a not-incredibly-great 1992 season.
Jones is highly touted as their shortstop of the future.
Oliva looks *very* good for 3B in a year or two.
Nieves (?) plays the outfield.
Mitchell would be starting for most teams.
And aren't I forgetting an outfielder or two?
Lopez doesn't look *bad* at catcher.

And despite trading Minchey, promoting Pete Smith, and losing Nied,
I think the Braves have 2-3 quality arms in AA or higher.  Names?
Info?  Projected arrival time?  Not that there is any room at the
major league level for them.

With this much talent around, the Braves can probably afford to let
Glavine walk.  Unless he's willing to sign for as little as Maddux
did...

-Valentine
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Date: Friday, 11 Dec 1992 14:15:24 EST
From: <RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: is it me, or are the yankees dolts?

i sincerely hope that there's no truth to this rumor about the
yankees wanting ron darling.

their rotation looked like melido perez, jim abbott, sam militello,
sterling hitchcock, and bob wickman.  cranking and young.

then they got key.  i can live with that.  i don't think it was
brilliant, but i guess it wasn't too bad.  i guess it wouldn't hurt
too much to see how hitchcock does at triple-a for a year.

but ron darling? bleagh.

it's like as if said, "well, even though we've got a pretty neat
rotation, signing cone and maddux will still help us," and then,
after being spurned my both cone and maddux, decided, "jeez, the
two starters that we wanted turned us down! we have to get two
starters! hey, i know, key and darling!" apparently forgetting that
cone and maddux were BETTER than the yankee pitchers, while key
and darling....

bob vesterman.






Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: demers@cs.ucsd.edu (David DeMers)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: All-Time Padre team
Date: 16 Dec 92 17:43:24 GMT
Organization: CSE Dept., UC San Diego


In article <4200361@hpcc01.corp.hp.com>, lynch@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Howard Lynch) writes:
|> OK, here's my .02 worth.  I was in SD in 1969, but don't remember if I
|> actually went to Opening Day :-)

|> >1B	McGriff
|> >	Colbert
|> 
|> This assumes that McGriff will be around/healthy for another couple of
|> years, and I think (hope?) we can count on that.  Otherwise, Colbert provided
|>  a lot of thrills for Padre fans during some LEAN years!  My favorite was the 
|> day he socked 5 HR's in a doubleheader in Atlanta.  Still in the record book
|> along with Stan-the-Man.

In fact, I thought he did it in St Louis, with Stan at the game.  I listened
to it on the radio, but that was a long time ago...


|> >2B	Bip Roberts
|> >	Roberto Alomar, just for the nice three seasons...
|> >	Alan Wiggins
|> 
|> Why Bip ahead of Roberto?  If longevity means anything, then we must
|> include Tim Flannery.  He did get some key HBP's :-)

I think Bip's performance in San Diego exceeded Roberto's, though
he did play about 5 positions - mostly 3B I think.

...

|> >LF	Colbert maybe, ... Kevin McReynolds
|> 
|> Well, this is my strongest vote: Gene Richards!  He's my favorite pre-Gwynn
|> Padre.  This guy was underrated.  Sure he had a stinky arm, which is why
|> they ran on him enough to lead the league in OF assists (more than once?),
|> but he hustled on defense, and hit .300+ and stole bases, and provided
|> excitement, on the post-Colbert LEAN teams.

Maybe.  He provided one of the best plays I've ever seen in a game at Dodger
Stadium.  Somebody hit a high fly to straightaway left and Richards lost
it.  Ozzie came streaking out from shortstop and made a diving grab heading
straight away from the plate, about 250 feet out.  Got a standing O from
the LA fans.



-- 
Dave DeMers			 ddemers@UCSD   demers@cs.ucsd.edu
Computer Science & Engineering	C-014		demers%cs@ucsd.bitnet
UC San Diego					...!ucsd!cs!demers
La Jolla, CA 92093-0114	(619) 534-0688, or -8187, FAX: (619) 534-7029
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Brian Dorsett (was Re: Who are these new Pirates ?)
Date: 17 Dec 92 21:45:29 GMT
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Dec17.204828.19676@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu> akamholz@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Andrew E Kamholz) writes:
>Well, I suppose you are right. If he has the talent and the health, there's
>no reason, though, that he couldn't still be considered a prospect.

Sure there is.  A prospect is someone who is potentially successful.
In baseball, 32-year-olds aren't "might become"s, they're "used to be"s.
Dorsett isn't going to become a better player.  He's a poor fielder,
and not such a great hitter.

-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Latest Jays News
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 23:34:00 GMT

In article <Bz3uu3.L6K@news.cso.uiuc.edu> hbrooks@uiatma.atmos.uiuc.edu (Harold_Brooks) writes:
>>Well, it is not clear that the Expo's have a better offensive third
>>baseman yet.  As for Baines, there is no DH in the National League...
>
>The Expos had a third baseman who produced at a slightly better rate than
>Wallach in ~half the playing time last year.  He's a lot younger so he's
>more likely to improve if they let him play.  His name was Bret Barberie.

WAS is exactly the point...they don't have a better offensive third
baseman yet, because Barberie in no longer an Expo, and there was really
not a whole lot the Expos could do about it.  The Expos weren't able
to protect a third baseman in the expansion draft, and they lost their
best one.

>The switch from Barberie to Wallach at third is another example of how
>major league teams are willing to accept consistently poor performance 
>(Wallach's '92 was a repeat of '91 at the plate) over an extended period
>of time from a veteran when the same level of production from a young
>player even for a short time is ticket to the bench or AAA.
>

Baseball players are more than just numbers...they are human beings...

Gerald
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: All-Time A's Team
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 07:21:04 GMT

In article <92Dec18.195128.21485@acs.ucalgary.ca> garbe@jasper.phys.ucalgary.ca (Greg Garbe) writes:

>|> 	SP Grove
>|> 	SP Waddell
>|> 	SP Plank
>|> 	SP Hunter

>I am not an A's fan nor know much about the pre-Oakland players but how can you
>leave  Dave Stewart off of this list.    I think Stewart is the most underrated pitcher of
>the past three decades.  Anyguy who can win 20+ games in four consecutive seasons
>would take my number four spot.

Well, the best reason to leave him off is that the other guys were much better.
Grove may just be the best pitcher ever.  Hunter was devastating in his
prime.  Plank and Waddell were among the best of their time.

Now, as to winning 20 games -- he hasn't.  He's been awarded a "win"
20+ times in each of four seasons, but that means his *team* won those
 games with him playing in certain innings.  MAny of those 
games were won in *spite* of Stewart's performance; often he gave up four
or five runs and required a big bailout from his team.  

He played for a very good team, and was quite good for a few years there.
But he was also quite lucky.  Look at the ERA for those four pitchers,
a much better way of evaluating them, before you decide.

Then consider how many games *they* would have won with the Eck closing
for them.

Roger
From: mspede@atlas.nafb.trw.com
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Yet Another Ex-Jay
Date: 14 Dec 92 16:46:15 PST

In article <k-_r2xd@lynx.unm.edu>, kbos@lacerta.unm.edu (K. Mitchell Bose) writes:
> Wanna hear something *really* funny?  Running the lineup through the lineup
> toy gives the leadoff spot to...
> 
> Steve Buechele.
> 
> With Candy in the #2 hole.
> 
> No kidding; this offense is anemic.
> 

  If I'm not gonna score runs, I better hope for a great pitching staff !
  Oops, better try a different topic all together.

  I'd rather have the Angel lineup than the cubs.

> Buechele  3B                   LF  Polonia
> Maldonado RF                   CF  Curtis
> Grace     1B                   1B  Snow
> Sandberg  2B                   RF  Salmon
> Wilkins    C                   DH  Davis
> May       LF                   3B  Gruber
> Dunston   SS                    C  Orton/Myers
> Sosa      CF                   SS  DiSarcina
> Pitcher    P                   2B  Easley
> 

 It's usally more fun watching kids lose than middle age has-beens.
 { this has more bite than my usual post - What'd I have for breakfast }
 
 mp
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: savoy@hg.uleth.ca (Jim Savoy)
Subject: Re: European style league structure for baseball?
Reply-To: savoy@hg.uleth.ca
Organization: University of Lethbridge
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 23:51:37 GMT


>> piiro01@convex.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de (Dave Rodriguez) writes...

>>  European sporting leagues are organized hierarchically, the number of teams 
>> in a league is fixed but the individual teams are not. Last place finishing 
>> teams are sent down to the next level league at the end of the season and are
>> replaced by top finishing teams from the lower league. I am interested in what
>> readers may think of the possibility of such a system in American sports.

While not practiced at the professional level, this scheme is not unheard of
in North America. Our fastball and slo-pitch leagues have done this ever
since I can remember. The leagues are split into three divisions of 10 or 12
teams each with division A being the strongest and division C being the weakest.
At the end of each summer, the two worst division A teams swap places with the
two best division B teams, and the same exchange takes place between divisions
B and C.

 _____________________________________________________________________________
     Jim Savoy          University Of Lethbridge         savoy@hg.uleth.ca

 Elsinor:  I'd like to point out that this uh... this tape has not been
           tampered with or edited in any way. Uh... it even has a ...
           a time-code on it, and those are very difficult to fake.
 Judge:    For the benefit of the court, could you please explain 'time-code'?
 Elsinor:  Uh... just because I don't know what it is, doesn't mean I'm lying!
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: nlu@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu)
Subject: Re: Atlanta pitching
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 19:06:25 GMT

In article <texdude.724523154@cs1.bradley.edu> texdude@cs1.bradley.edu (Philip Allen) writes:

>I've seen a lot of people say, "Well, I think their better than <such
>and such> staff - because while all of the pitchers in <such and such>
>staff had excellent years, they all bombed when they were together."
>Well, we haven't seen how the Braves pitching will react to another
>pitcher.  And we haven't seen how Maddux will react to no longer being
>one of the only bright spots on a team.

I am not sure if you're talking about me, but that is certainly *not* what I
meant.  When I said that I didn't think the Viola/Cone/Fernandez/Gooden/Darling
rotation is as good as the Braves rotation now, it was *not* the arrival of
Viola that caused Gooden and Darling to suddenly lose their performance.

At the time of the Viola arrival, Gooden was already mediocre, and Darling
was already falling off.  The arrival of Viola did not, IMO, stop or quicken
the fall of Gooden and Darling.  And if you look at those pitchers' ages when
they were first put together, you'll realize that it's perhaps time for them
to fall.

The Braves are in a different situation.  Glavine, Smoltz, Avery, and Pete
Smith are all young enough to continue to improve.

And I don't buy this mental thing about being the ace.  If a pitcher does well
after a better pitcher was acquired, the mediots will say "He took the pressure
off him."  If a pitcher doesn't do well after a better pitcher was acquired,
the mediots will say "He's reacting poorly to losing the ace spot."  They don't
realize that there's the possibility that it's just plain chance.  (And think
about it, isn't it 99% likely that Glavine will either do better or do worse?)

===============================================================================
GO CALIFORNIA ANGELS!
===============================================================================
Nelson Lu (claudius@leland.stanford.edu)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball