HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: z_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: NL ROY: More Fuel for Debate
Date: 30 Sep 92 15:56:14 CST
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University

In article <6552@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>, genetic+@pitt.edu (Dr. Dave) writes:
> 
> If you mean "per 27 personal outs" instead of "per team game", then you are
> saying that replacing Bonds with John Kruk (similar OBP) would cost 200+ 
> runs over the season.  Again, this doesn't make sense.

	Nope, the difference is 72 runs. If we used Frank Thomas instead of
Kruk, Bonds comes out 42 runs better over the course of 150 games. Bonds is
just *that good* this season.

> 
> The problem is that Bonds's RC/27 of 12 really is saying "Barry Bonds would
> score 12/9 runs per game and drive in 12/9 more runs per game, if he played
> in a lineup of Barry Bondses".  This may be true, but it's mostly irrelevant
> to how many runs he'll score and drive in for the Pirates, or how many his
> teammates will score and drive in that they wouldn't have without him.
> 

	This isn't correct. The fact that the Pirates aren't scoring more 
runs is an indication that other players are *not* performing extremely 
well (Lind, King, Mr.-Third-Baseman-This-Week, etc). The Pirates wouldn't even
be a third place club without Bonds; the Braves would still be battling the
Reds for first without Pendleton (but at least they'd be in the race).

Brandon Cope

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: claudius@leland.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu)
Subject: Re: The Superlatives of the NL
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 92 16:51:39 GMT

In article <BvL8GA.G04@rice.edu> tomscud@ruf.rice.edu (Thomas Reid Scudder) writes:
>In article <ahn-041092012617@branford-college-node.net.yale.edu> ahn@pop.cis.yale.edu (Eugene R. Ahn) writes:
>>Best rookie hitter: Eric Karros
>Heh... I'll let Nelson Lu argue with you about this one... You seem to value
>the big media stats (HR, RBI, BA) over the "stathead" stats (OBP and SLG) 

Well, I am not going to argue any more on this, since I've already posted ~15
messages about the relative merits of Karros and Sanders (and Alou).  But
thanks for the offer. :-)

But in any case, Eugene was polite, and it was pretty clear that he posted his
own opinions, rather than "how things should be," by organizing it in a list
form...

But, in any case, if you are talking about "most valuable rookie hitter" (as
opposed to either "most valuable rookie" or "best rookie hitter,") then Karros
*might* have a case, but he's not the *best* rookie hitter, nor is he the most
valuable rookie overall.

===============================================================================
GO CALIFORNIA ANGELS!
===============================================================================
Nelson Lu (claudius@leland.stanford.edu)
From: genetic+@pitt.edu (Dr. Dave)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Sheffield is NL MVP
Date: 6 Oct 92 20:06:31 GMT
Organization: Department of Industrial Engineering

Thus spake fester@island.COM (Mike Fester):

>In article <1992Oct5.235038.9656@cs.wayne.edu> dfl@math.wayne.edu (David Frohardt-Lane) writes:

>>That's probably true, but most teams in the majors (if not all) need OBP
>>more than they need SLG, so therefore OBP is more valuable.

>?? It depends on your team. As both contribute to scoring (and BTW, for the
>most part, they are the same thing) 

For the league as a whole, they are pretty much the same thing.  In fact, the
definition of "good hitter" might just as well be "one for whom OBP and SLG
are not at all the same thing".

>it would depend on your team's needs. 
>Another high OBPer behind Thomas isn't going to drive him in any more often.

This is true, but misleading.  Another high OBPer behind Thomas *may* cause
Thomas to be driven in more often (i.e. may increase Thomas's runs scored),
and will almost certainly cause the team's overall run scoring to improve,
even without getting the RBIs himself.  What he gives up in runner-advancing,
he makes up for in inning-extending, moving Thomas into scoring position, and
getting on base himself.  Who gets the RBIs is irrelevant.




-- 
       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: dfl@math.wayne.edu (David Frohardt-Lane)
Subject: Re: Sheffield is NL MVP
Organization: Wayne State University Math Department, Detroit
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 23:50:38 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.150210.1135@island.COM> fester@island.COM (Mike Fester) writes:
>In article <1992Oct2.211553.24079@leland.Stanford.EDU> claudius@leland.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu) writes:
>>The problem here is, SLG left out a part that OBP does have that *should* have
>>*some* slugging value; the walk.  Walks moves some runners, and RC gives walks
>>.26 of a single in that component, which sounds about right.
>
>?? This doesn't address the statement at all. And if you're looking at 
>"problems", it might be pointed out that OBP gives exactly the same weight
>to HR as to walks.

This is absurd.  OBP is not attempting to measure a player's overall
value or anything like that.  It's simply the percentage of the time a
player doesn't make an out.  Why should homers count more in OBP than
walks?  Slugging, OTOH, is measuring how much a player can move runners
along (and how far he can get by himself), and walks do move other
players along.

>>Of course it can.  But if two players have the same OPS but different OBP and
>>SLG, you should take the higher OBP, unless it's an extreme case like a taller
>>version of Eddie Gaedel.
>
>Nope. Way too many exceptions (even at the team level) to make a statement like
>that. I'd take a guy that matched my team's needs the best.

That's probably true, but most teams in the majors (if not all) need OBP
more than they need SLG, so therefore OBP is more valuable.

--
David Frohardt-Lane   dfl@math.wayne.edu 
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Go Tigers, Lions, Pistons, Red Wings and Wolverines !!!!!!!!!!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Bonds "choke"?
From: Jeff Pierce <JPIERCE@MIAMIU.BITNET>
Date: Monday, 5 Oct 1992 19:00:03 EDT
Organization: Miami University - Academic Computer Service

Since I posted the original quote from memory regarding Gene Tenace
and Bonds, I thought that I would dig out the Elias that I packed away
in July and see what it said.
 
Turns out that Bonds and Tenace are tied at 0 for 22 with runners on
base in post season play.  That includes the World Series for Tenace.
Just change it to 0 for 6 for Bonds at the end of 1990 and the quote is
correct.  Tenace's "slump" started in 1973 and ended with an 0 for 6 as
a DH in the '82 Series for the Cards.  Just for the record:
 
Series     AB  R  H  2B  3B  HR  RBI  BB
'71 ALCS    3  0  0   0   0   0    0   ?
'72 ALCS   17  1  1   0   0   0    1   ?
'72 WS     23  5  8   1   0   4    9   ?   Impressive!
'73 ALCS   17  3  4   1   0   0    0   ?
'73 WS     19  0  3   1   0   0    0   ?
'74 ALCS   11  1  0   0   0   0    1   ?
'75 ALCS    9  0  0   0   0   0    0   ?
'82 WS      6  0  0   0   0   0    0   ?
 
I'm not sure how Tenace got an RBI in '74 with an 0 for 22 streak with
runners on base that started in '73.  Anyone know the details?  Maybe
the RBI was a typo.
 
Earlier, someone posted in this Bonds chokes debate that the Pirates
weren't putting runners on base for Barry to drive in last year (or
something to that effect).  The "slump" merely indicates that there have
been runners on base and that he hasn't been productive when given
opportunities.  As I originally mentioned, I don't know if he chokes or
not, but I do wonder if he will continue the "slump" this year and how
far he will continue it if he does so.  Personally, I hope he singles
home a runner with his first AB and has a good series.
 
I will stand by the comment about the possibility of seeing a pinch-
hitter for him in game 6 or 7 if he does another 0 for 16 with runners
on base.  If the Pirates have a chance to put the Braves away in Game
6 or 7 and Bonds isn't productive, I could see pinch-hitting for him
(particularly if someone on the bench is having a good year against
Atlanta pitching).  Pinch-hitting for Bonds is not the equivalent of
sending Willie Mays down to the minors after an 0 for 16 slump (is this
an example of the stathead arrogance which is being debated on another
thread or just an innane comment).  It would be a managerial decision
acknowledging that another player might have a chance to succeed in a
situation where Bonds has been unproductive due to pressure, bad luck,
or the voodoo doctor on the mound with the Bonds doll in his glove.
 
Ah well.  Go Barry!  Have a Tennace-like series.  I hope it turns out
to be the impressive one this time around.
 
                                          Jeff
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Another surprise from the media
From: grabiner@math.harvard.edu (David Grabiner)
Date: 4 Oct 92 17:34:18 EDT
Organization: /etc/organization


From Bob Ryan's column in the Boston Globe, discussing Wade Boggs' value
as a hitter, partly to speculate whether he would have been more
valuable if he had tried to hit for power:

"Of all the statistics that baseball uses to measure offensive
performance, the two more useful are on-base percentage and slugging
percentage."

I don't know whether this is actually a display of intelligence, or
simply fishing for a statistic to defend Boggs despite his lack of RBI
and happening to catch a big one.  (Not that anyone could be a good RBI
man on this year's team.)

--
David Grabiner, grabiner@zariski.harvard.edu
"We are sorry, but the number you have dialed is imaginary."
"Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and try again."
Disclaimer: I speak for no one and no one speaks for me.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: eebonar@sn01.sncc.lsu.edu (Dave Bonar)
Subject: Re: Which team is most improved???
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Reply-To: eebonar@sn01.sncc.lsu.edu
Organization: News and Views from LSU
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 13:52:45 GMT
Nntp-Posting-Host-[nntpd-23531]: sn01.sncc.lsu.edu

In article <19822@ector.cs.purdue.edu>, gritter@cs.purdue.EDU (Carl R. Gritter) writes...
>In article <1992Oct1.222355.27143@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> crobbins@lonestar.utsa.edu (Chris S. Robbins) writes:
>>
>>Lets start a debate.  Which team has improved the most this year.
> 
>Its already been stated, but I'll make a case for the Expos.  However,
>I'll say out front that the Astros have also improved dramatically and
>who's to really say which team has improved more.

	I'm all for the Astro's but I really can't say they improved all
that much.  If they had shown more pitching I might be willing to support
them for most improved.  As it is, their starting pitching became really
bad.  Their offense improved but not enough.  

	I'd have to go for the Expos or the Yankees.

Dave
__________
Dave Bonar
eebonar@lsuvax.sncc.lsu.edu
__________
From: gajarsky@pilot.njin.net (Bob Gajarsky)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: What is baseball?
Date: 1 Oct 92 04:10:21 GMT
Organization: Somewhere in Hoboken

since i posted this originally, and got some interesting comments...

when i hear people (writers, etc.) say "pitching is 75% of baseball" it
 gets me sick.  somewhat.

then they go off and spew about how somebody (who usually is a nice
 guy, but can't hit worth anything) is a great fielder at (first base?
 left field? but someplace not worth a lot defensively), and although
 they can't hit, pitching and defense is 75 (80? 85?) % of the game.

argh!!  makes me really sick.

i think most gm's realize the value of TRUE superstar pitchers, but
 they also realise thae inherent dangers of locking up with any pitcher
 for a couple of years.  but anyhow...

bill hames had a good study a couple years ago.  which said, basically,
 if pitching is 75% of the game, then the teams that won era titles
 would win the league 75% of the time, and those that
 led the league in runs would finish worse than the teams that
 won era titles.

it didn't happen. 

it didn't even come close.


- bob gaj
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: rstimets@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (robert and stimets)
Subject: Re: Real-life rulebook trivia
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 17:47:16 GMT

In article <Bv5H4G.4xC@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jhg8680@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Jon  Hamkins) writes:
>trn@warper.jhuapl.edu (Tony Nardo) writes:
>
>>lbr@holos0.uucp (Len Reed) writes:
>
>>>>If the runner doesn't try to correct his error, but goes to third, an appeal
>>>>under 7.10 (b) [missed base] may be made at second, but only after the ball is
>>>>dead.  Why after?  Because up until that moment, the runner still need not
>>>>touch second base -- he can legally return directly to first.  Once the ball
>>>>is dead, however, the runner is stuck at third, and can only hope the appeal
>>>>at second is overlooked or botched.
>
>>>This is just wrong.  If you round second base and miss it, you'll be out
>>>on appeal.  You're not gonna get very far telling the umpire that you were
>>>in the vincinity of third on your way from first to second and so didn't
>>>really miss second at all.  Here you've gone from an eccentric interpretation
>>>of "missed base" to a flat statement that second isn't missed until third
>>>is touched.  No way.
>
>>Perhaps you are correct, but I've never seen an appeal made on a runner that
>>neglected to touch a base (first, second or third, that is) until the ball was
>>dead and the runner had reached at least one base beyond the one missed.
>
If the runner is standing on third and the defense is planning an appeal, 
it is in their best interests to call time, (thereby fixing the runner at
third) then putting the ball back in play and appealing.  This would help
prevent a hurried throw to second going astray.

I did see a wierd one, though, at Cohen Stadium (El Paso).  The Diablos were
appealing to second after the ball had been dead.  The pitcher LOBBED a
throw to the second baseman, which the runner at third took as an invitation to 
steal home.  The second baseman, seeing the runner going, left the bag to hurry
the throw home, which was late.
The defense, seeing that the runner was safe, threw back to second to appeal,
but too late.. they had already made a play at home so no appeal could be
made.

>You probably have seen it.  There are very specific rules for when the
>ball becomes dead, and none of them involve this play.  Unless a player
>has called time, the ball remains live during the entire time up to and
>including the point at which the appeal is made.
>
RStimets



Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: smm@sei.cmu.edu (Stephen Masters)
Subject: Re: Lighten up!
Organization: Software Engineering Institute
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 17:31:31 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.153647.13713@adobe.com> snichols@adobe.com (Sherri Nichols) writes:
>
>Obligatory baseball content: Zane Smith isn't on the post-season roster,
>according to my local paper.  Does anyone in the 'burgh have the list yet?

According to KDKA TV, Danny Cox is on the post-season roster and Zane Smith is
not.

The Pirates post-season roster is:

Pitchers--Belinda, Cox, Drabek, Jackson, Mason, Neagle, Patterson, Tomlin,
Walk, and Wakkefield

Catchers--LaValliere and Slaught

Outfielders--Bonds, Cole, Espy, McClendon, Varsho, and VanSlyke

Infielders--Bell, Garcia, King, Lind, Merced, Redus, and Wehner


Steve Masters
smm@sei.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: stewart@healthy.uwaterloo.ca (Terry Stewart)
Subject: Twenty-five man rosters
Organization: University of Waterloo
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 15:34:24 GMT


Could someone please post the 25 man rosters for post season
play?  Thanks.
 
Terry
From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Inevitable changes
Date: 30 Sep 92 12:33:03 GMT
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com

In article <1992Sep30.110755.1610@abo.fi> MLINDROOS@finabo.abo.fi  
(Marcus Lindroos INF) writes:
> All of you forgot the most obvious thing to do - dropping that  
ridiculous "World
> Championship" claim. Don't get me wrong - baseball is an  
international game
> and the major leagues are big business not only in the States, but  
the World
> Series is *N O T* a world/international sports event. It's the
> national baseball championship of North America - nothing more,  
nothing less. 
> MLB is making a mockery of a title that should be reserved for  
international
> competition. They should invite Japanese teams to play against the  
"World
> Series" winners or shut up. To non-Americans, the so-called "World  
Series" 
> (the name, that is) reeks of artificial hype and conservative  
American 
> ignorance towards the rest of the world.  
>  

The name "World Series" was coined when Americans were the only
country in the world that played much baseball, and certainly
the only country playing it on a professional level.  The name
is a tradition, and has lots of history and meaning for lots
of baseball fans.  Why should we change the name just because
other countries have decided that they, too, like to play
baseball?  If the name were coined recently, I'd tend to agree with
you: it would be silly and arrogant.  But given that we've been using
the name for about 90 years now (and for about 70 of those years
we were the only country playing baseball at a high level), I
think tradition should win out.  (This is baseball, after all,
not football or hockey; tradition is important here.)

--
Jim Mann            
Stratus Computer   jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
From: genetic+@pitt.edu (Dr. Dave)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: AL Game Score Report through 9/21 Part 1
Date: 28 Sep 92 18:30:23 GMT
Organization: Department of Industrial Engineering

Thus spake RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu:

>for example, in 1991, dennis martinez pitched a perfect game.  yet there
>were five games which had higher game scores, and three others with the
>same game score.  this is primarily (nay, solely) because martinez struck
>out only five batters.

>how can david cone's game in which he walked one and gave up three hits be
>considered "better" than a perfect game, just because cone struck out 19?

You've already anticipated my argument below...

>you probably could argue that cone's game gave less chances for the fielders
>to fuck up, and thus is better from a pitching standpoint.  this might be
>true.  however, i think it is generally agreed that the vast majority of
>team defense is due to the pitcher... 

Actually, I don't think this *is* generally agreed.  Such work has been done
on Defensive Averages so far indicates that most of a pitcher's contributions
seem to come in HR's allowed, strikeouts, and walks.  Ground/air ratio also
plays a (smaller) role, since ground balls tend to turn into more outs than
fly balls.

Occasionally, a pitcher comes along who seems to make everybody pop the ball
up, giving him a higher value than indicated by the factors above.  Sid
Fernandez is probably the best example of this.  For ground balls, though,
there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of variation from pitcher to pitcher in
how difficult chances are.

[Corrections to the above are welcome.]

>if a pitcher can get a batter to
>hit the ball towards second, generally any second baseman can get the batter
>out.  

Except that there isn't a pitcher in baseball who can "get the batter to hit
the ball towards the second baseman".  Batters don't generally hit the ball
toward fielders; they just hit the ball.  Fielders chase it down; some are
(much) better than others at this.

>does it really matter that martinez only struck out five? an out's an out's
>an out, if you never let anyone on base.

For that game, of course it doesn't matter.  Even if he gave up 27 line drive
outs, it's still a perfect game.  But, if you're trying to measure how well
he pitched, I'd say it certainly does matter.


-- 
       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: mjones@fenway.aix.kingston.ibm.com (Mike Jones)
Subject: Re: Winning a short series (was Re: TORONTO BLUE JAYS CLINCHED THE AL EAST!!!!!)
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 92 23:06:33 GMT
Reply-To: mjones@donald.aix.kingston.ibm.com
Organization: IBM Corp. Kingston NY

In article <1992Oct6.212915.27498@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca> 91287041@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Roger Maynard) writes:
>In <19888@ector.cs.purdue.edu> gritter@cs.purdue.EDU (Carl R. Gritter) writes:
>>alone fire the manager -- don't get me wrong, I'd like to see Cito
>>replaced, but not making it to the series isn't the reason -- he's
>>simply not a good tactical manager).  Also, anybody who thinks that
>This Cito bashing is getting just a little rediculous ain't it?  If
>Cito was to take his team to victory in the WS you would still replace
>him because he was not a "good tactical manager"?

Yep. I consider it entirely likely that the Jays might win a World
Championship in spite of their manager.
 
>Would the blue jays have a better record with a good tactical manager
>than they have had with Gaston?  Hardly.  Gaston has a career mark of
>350-262 which averages out to about 93 wins a year.  How many managers
>can squeeze 93 wins a year out of any team year after year?  Not many.
>There is a lot more involved in bringing a group of very competitive
>people together to achieve a common goal than simple tactics.  Yeah
>I wouldn't have White leading off neither but i don't see Gillick banging
>on my door with a management contract.

If your players are good enough, you're more likely to hurt them with
"tactics" than help them. If your players are bad enough, there's little you
can do to help them. The only cases (IMHO) where a manager can make a
significant differences is with a good, but flawed, team. Take Earl Weaver,
for instance. Earl was one of the best ever at taking OK players with some
significant skills (John Lowenstein, John Shelby, Davey Johnson, etc.) and
putting them into situations where they were most likely to succeed. If you
have the '61 Yankees, you don't need tactics. If you have the '62 Mets, they
won't help. The best managers are the guys who know who the best players on
their team are in every situation, and manage to get them into those
situations. In this regard, Cito doesn't have a clue. Fortunately for him,
he's had enough good players that it hasn't mattered.

   Mike Jones  |  AIX/ESA Development  |  mjones@donald.aix.kingston.ibm.com

April 27, 1983: Nolan Ryan breaks Walter Johnson's record of 3508 career
strikeouts, fanning Expo Brad Mills.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: silber@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Ami A. Silberman)
Subject: Re: Defensive Positional Value (was AL ROY, long ago)
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 06:02:06 GMT

spira@panix.com (Greg "Sarcasm Is A Way Of Life" Spira) writes:

>This is getting much too complicated, I think.  My question: Can the worst
>a replacement level shortstop earn playing time with less offense than
>the best defensive first baseman produces while that first baseman does
>not earn playing time because he isn't good enough offensively.  If that
>situation is possible, than I think the ability to play shortstop must
>have some intrinsic value.

Perhaps in the mind of general managers and managers. How else can you
explain [insert your least favorite veteran shortstop here]. In a world where
Galarraga is an everyday 1st baseman, anything is possible.

-- 
ami silberman - janitor of lunacy
	silber@cs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball,soc.culture.japan