HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fester@island.COM (Mike Fester)
Subject: Re: AL MVP- Joe Carter vs Cecil Fielder?!?!?!???
Organization: /usr/local/rn/organization
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 15:00:47 GMT

In article <6072@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> genetic+@pitt.edu (Dr. Dave) writes:
>Thus spake niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent):
>>In article <6056@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> genetic+@pitt.edu (Dr. Dave) writes:
>>
>>>There is no denying that Cecil's 1990 season would deserve the MVP this year,
>>>in either league.
>>
>>Really?  I deny it.
>>
>>Cecil posted a 377/592 in 1990.  Not bad.
>
>[Sheffield, Bonds, McGwire, Alomar stats deleted.]
>
>OK; I take it back.  (Sorry, Mike; you knew it was too good to last... :-) )

Actually, I'm surprised you made the statement at all.

>Bonds this year is clearly better.  I'm not sure about Sheffield, because I
>*do* believe that 51 HR have more value than the raw SLG shows.  What were 
>those modified weights for singles, doubles, etc.?  Can we compute modified
>SLGs for Cecil and this year's crop?  Is offense up this year, in general?

Offense in the AL is UP over '90 (about .2 RPG as indicated by ERA). Offense in
the NL is down about .25 RPG by the same indicator. Not much to distinguish
between the years in that event.

Actually, I think Bonds deserves the MVP over almost anyone for the last, oh,
10 years or so. Despite missing about 30 games, he's put up "raw" numbers
(HR, Runs scored, RBI) to rival ANYONE this year, and HE had a reasonable shot
at the triple crown with his recent surge. Plus, almost anywhere outside
Pittsburgh, he'd be playing a decent (excellent) centerfield.

Finally, you made a point about 51 HR being worth more than the raw SLG numbers.
It wouldn't surprise me if any positive offensive contribution that far out-
strips the "norms" would be more valuable than the stat would normally be;
eg, while .420 OBP are not too uncommon in a given year, someone with a .480
OBP might contribute far more than his simple raising of overall team OBP.

Mike
-- 
Disclaimer - I'm only doing what the little voices tell me to do. 
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: winstonc@phakt.usc.edu (|)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Lead off walks....
Date: 6 Oct 92 06:35:25 GMT
Article-I.D.: phakt.1astadINNmh
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: phakt.usc.edu

In article <1992Oct3.141417.1345@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> z_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
>In article <1992Oct2.201742.28863@Princeton.EDU>, roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
>> In article <1992Oct2.130542.1330@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> z_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
>>>	Yes, I did say this, but I was looking at it from the *start* of the
>>>inning, not *after* the first batter reached base. This ain't the gambler's
>>>fallacy (though it is largely irrelevant). From the start of an inning, there
>>>is a slightly better chance of a team scoring if the first runner reaches
>>>via walk than hit, 
>> 
>> WHOA!  There's your conditional probability right there: the "if."
>> Which means that you're *not* taking it from the start of the inning;
>
>	I'll admit to making a big logical mistake, but I still don't think it
>was the gambler's falalcy.

When I first read Brandon's set of articles, a.k.a. the "Cope Hypothesis"
:-) I thought that he had fallen to the gambler's fallacy. But after
reading his last response, I think I see what he is saying, and I
believe that it is *not* the gambler's fallacy.

What I think he's saying, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that
if we look at what happens in each inning *after the fact*, then we
can see that in a certain number of innings, there will be 1 hit in
that inning, in a certain number there will be 2, 3, and so forth.

Now, in those that we know (since we are looking a posteriori) have
1 hit, those with a leadoff hit are less likely to produce a scored run
than are those in which the leadoff player gets on base by a walk,
because we *know* that a hit will follow in this case, and because
we *know* a hit will not follow in the first case. This is not the
gambler's fallacy, obviously.

In those innings with two hits, the ones with leadoff walks are again
more likely to score (presumably) since two hits will follow, while
the ones with leadoff singles will score less frequently since only
one hit will follow. And so forth.

However, this argument is probably irrelevant, because many of those
innings in which there is a leadoff walk, there are no hits; in those
with leadoff hits, there is already a hit. Thus, the relevant
comparison becomes P(1 hit|walk) vs. P(2 hits|leadoff hit), which
is roughly the same (presumably). 

If I (or Brandon or anyone else) were to say that the P(1 hit|walk)=
P(another hit|walk) is significantly different from P(2 hits|leadoff hit)=
P(another hit|leadoff hit) then I (or the other) would be committing
the gambler's fallacy. But not so here (though, admittedly, the
argument is mostly irrelevant).

So, Valentine, please watch your tongue.

Winston
-- 
Winston Chang		    "Truth is beauty, beauty truth;
winstonc@aludra.usc.edu	     That is all ye know on earth,
			     And all ye need to know."
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: tedward@cs.cornell.edu (Edward [Ted] Fischer)
Subject: Re: RG's 1992 Tribe Front Office Report Card
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 21:53:15 GMT

In article <5OCT199215344050@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov> ecaxron@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Ron Graham) writes:
>
>o	Allowing RP Doug Jones to leave as a free agent - D
>
>I thought this was bad when it happened.  The Astros were smart to 
>sign him - it probably took some of the sting out of losing Kenny
>Lofton ;-).

I disagree on this one.  Doug Jones, while he pitched pretty well this
year, is no spring chicken.  The Indians are aiming for 1994, and I
can't see him fitting into their long-term plans.  Meanwhile, he would
be costing them a moderate amount of money.  Besides, Olin and
Lilliquist were both better than Jones this year.

>o	Allowing IF Jerry Browne to leave as a free agent - C-

See Doug Jones.  If the Indians are truly serious about rebuilding,
the *last* thing they want to do is load up on mediocre, expensive,
old guys.

>o	Aftermath of Swindell trade, year one - C-

I think you mean that they shouldn't have traded him.  I think they
had to trade him, but they should have been able to get more.  It
looked like they took the first deal they were offered.

Do you have the starting/relief breakdown for Armstrong?  Has he
really been good in relief?  Or has it simply been a small sample set?
Is he even up to 50 relief innings yet?

>o	Trade of minor-league IF Jason Hardtke to San Diego for OF Thomas
>	Howard - B+
>
>Howard was very good as a fourth OF for the Indians this year.  So good,
>in fact, that Alex Cole became expendable.

If the Indians are interested in trading him to the Red Sox, I'm sure
they can get more than Jason Hardtke (who?) now.  And the Sox could
use a speedy player *with* an OBP.  Of course, I thought they should
get Cole.  Did the Indians get anything for him?

>o	Signing of RPs Derek Lilliquist, Eric Plunk, and Ted Power - A
>
>Who could predict how well these three guys would do this season?  And 
>having them made Steve Olin more effective.  I Predict [tm] that Lilliquist
>will be protected in the Expansion Draft.

I'd have to agree.  Lilliquist looks like he has turned his career
around.  Not that he didn't always have potential, but he has never
dominated before like this!

>o	Trade of minor-league OF Kyle Washington to Baltimore for SP
>	Jose Mesa - C+

Is Kyle Washington worth anything?  If not, this is a lot like the
Bolton/Hatcher deal.  Essentially nothing for nothing.

>o	Trade of OF Alex Cole to Pittsburgh for minor-league OF Antonio
>	Mitchell and SP John Carter - C-

Who are these two guys?

>o	OVERALL FRONT OFFICE GRADE - A-

They have made some good moves recently.  A lot more than the Red Sox
have.  (The Big Moves for the Sox this year were sending Plantier and
Vaughn to the minors, and trading Bolton for Hatcher.  Great.)

Cheers,
-Valentine
-- 
Make outs, not walks!					tedward@cs.cornell.edu
Clemens four Cy Young!
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: kbos@carina.unm.edu (Kurt "Some Guy" Bose)
Subject: John Stuart Mill: Umpire
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 17:42:16 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <1992Sep29.161451.7053@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>In <trn.717767372@warper.jhuapl.edu> trn@warper.jhuapl.edu (Tony Nardo) writes:
>>Well, we've drifted a *long* way from the original scenario... :-)
>
>[Lots and lots and lots and lots deleted]
>
>>Why not?  The sentence is semantically correct without the "re" imposed on
>>"retouch".  And, whether or not the "re" was *intended* to carry extra
>>weight, I remain unconvinced that a protest of the strict "retouch"
>>interpretation would be overturned by the arguement that such a ruling
>>violates the intent of the framers of the game.
>
>Original intent of the framers?  No way.  The *real* question is, what 
>would John Stuart Mill think about the whole thing?

"The individual is not accountable to society for his actions, insofar as these
 concern the interests of no person but himself." - John Stuart Mill

I think that we can safely say that Mill's views on personal liberty would 
lead him to question the concept of limiting player action due to "intent of
the framers".  That is to say, Mill's attitude would tend toward greater support
for a loose interpretation of "retouch" in this case.  However, at what point
do the interests of the runner begin to concern the game, and the sport itself?
When may we hold a player accountable to society and the rules therein?  That,
sirs (and ladies), is the real question at hand...

While we're on the subject, more wit and wisdom from J.S. Mill:

"The worth of a state, in the long run, is the worth of the individuals 
composing it."

Now, if this is true, then isn't it ALSO true that the worth of a run, in the
long state, or even the Longhorn state, is the worth of the individuals
composing it?  In this case, then, should it not be so that the most important
runs are those which involve Barry Bonds or Frank Thomas?  And should we not
anoint John Stuart Mill as a stathead, because he understands that this run
is equal to the worth of all the individuals of whom the run is composed, and
not just the worth of the person who drives the run in?

And again, more words from the master:

"Unearned increment"

Dare we assume anything other than the fact that John Stuart Mill, even in 1859,
recognized the effect that defense would have on the scoring of runs, and the
need to recognize that negative contribution to the pitcher's runs against
average???

I think not.

-- 
Kurt Bose (as in Daisy, not Rose) * kbos@carina.unm.edu * Make..oh, you know.---
-"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing when it is--
--no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors.  The cause of the other-
---half can be attributed to playing Jose Offerman at short." - John Stuart Mill
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: roberts@leland.Stanford.EDU (John Jacob Roberts)
Subject: Re: A dumb question
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 92 15:03:55 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.131023.19992@cs.cornell.edu> tedward@cs.cornell.edu (Edward [Ted] Fischer) writes:
>
>Will LaRussa be starting Weiss in the playoffs?  It seems that he
>would have equally good defense with Bordick/Browne as with
>Weiss/Bordick (Weiss has reportedly lost a step), and Browne certainly
>has had the better bat this year!

I agree with putting Bordick at short.  Having been to several A's games
this year, it's clear that Bordick's range is better than Weiss', and may
be enough to make up for Weiss' clearly superior arm.  Offensively, even
though Bordick's .300 is pretty worthless, it's better than Weiss' .221.

As far as putting Browne in at second, I think you're overlooking one of
the A's better players:  Lance Blankenship.  I believe he's at least equal
to Browne defensively, and look at the stats:

                BA   OBP  SA  R  2B 3B HR RBI BB SO SB CS
Blankenship    .246 .393 .346 56 23  1  3  33 77 54 21  6
Browne         .287 .366 .364 43 12  2  3  40 40 40  3  3

Projected over a full season (700 PA):

                BA   OBP  SA  R  2B 3B HR RBI BB  SO SB CS
Blankenship    .246 .393 .346 94 39  2  5  56 130 91 35 10
Browne         .287 .366 .364 83 23  4  6  77  77 77  6  6

The difference in RBI stems from the fact that Blankenship has most often
batted first or ninth, to take advantage of his Rickey Henderson Jr.-like
abilities (130 walks?  Move over, Frank Thomas), while Browne has batted
seventh or second.

IMO, LaRussa should use Blankenship at second, batting him ninth for the
"double leadoff man" effect.  Browne's .018 edge in SA can't make up for
Blank's ability to get on base.

Jake

No signature, I'm new at this.
From: gajarsky@pilot.njin.net (Bob Gajarsky)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: much to my chagrin...
Date: 30 Sep 92 12:50:40 GMT
Organization: Somewhere in Hoboken

i think what most of the people are saying is (like sherri, among
 others, in 1 post) that jack morris IS good.  if he every year had
 an average era, and pitched tons of innings, hed have value.  he's
 done better - he has had above average era's in a few of those years
 (not sure how many offhand).what it revolves around, to my mind,
 is all the people who say morris should get the cy young because
 he's 20-5, when 20-5 doesn't tell how he's pitched.  his 4 era isn't
 totally acurate, but it's a lot closer to the truth than his won-lost 
 record.

i can think of one startig pitcher on EVERY team other than detroit that
 is a better candidate for cy young.  seattle's is fleming, for
 those looking...

- bob gaj
From: z_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: minnie minoso
Date: 1 Oct 92 20:03:17 GMT
Article-I.D.: ccsvax.1992Oct1.140317.1310
Distribution: na
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University

In article <1992Oct1.053843.24391@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, sager@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mike.r.sager) writes:
> In article <92273.231950RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu>, <RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu> writes:
>> who is this minnie minoso dude, why did the white sox bring him out of
>> a twelve year retirement to give him eight at bats, why did they then
>> bring him out of his second retirement four years later to give him
>> two more at bats, and are there any plans to bring him back again, now
>> in his seventies (well, soon to be) ?
> 
> Minnie Minoso is a former White Sox player and coach.  Currently, I
> think he still has ties to the team in some other capacity.  They brought
> him out of retirement in the seventies so that he could become the first
> player to play in five different decades.  They brought him back again
> in the eighties to make it six decades.  As for the nineties, they wanted
> to bring him back, but Faye Vincent rejected the move.

	From what I heard, Vincent didn't just block the move, he banned Minoso
from baseball...

Brandon Cope
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: The FASS Theatre Company <fass@math.uwaterloo.ca>
Subject: Blue Jay musings...
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 20:43:52 GMT


IF the Blue Jays win the East division(Big IF, Milwalkee frightens me).
I've heard some rumblings that the pitching rotation Cito will go with
is:
 	Jack Morris
	Juan Guzman
	David Cone

Now this set up has Jack pitching games 1,4,7 and although he has the best
record (The only Blue Jay to ever win 20) I really don't think he's the
best pitcher.

Is it wise to leave Jimmy Key out of this rotation.  He does represent a
reliable lefty in the bullpen (He's had a great September) however could
he be of more use as a starter.  Consider that a long series facing nothing
but right handed pitching might allow the opposition to get into a groove
(Although getting into a groove against Cone or Guzman might be difficult)

I don't know what the stats are(although I'm sure there must be some) on
how it effects your batting if you get a steady diet of right handers
or if a lefty comes along to screw up your timing.

Do the A's do better against Righties or Lefties?
Any thoughts would be much appreciated.

Lee.


*******************************************************************************
*******************************************************************************
***									    ***
***  It is better to have loved and lost...    				    ***
***					   than to have won...              ***
***							      and married.  ***
***									    ***
*******************************************************************************
*******************************************************************************
From: JPIERCE@MIAMIU.BITNET (Jeff Pierce)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Brewers sked (WAS Re: Jack is a winner)
Date: 1 Oct 92 01:45:45 GMT
Organization: Miami University - Academic Computer Service

Since the Brewers will be playing their final three games against
Oakland, and the A's have already clinched, it appears that the A's
have the chance to influence who their opponent will be in the ALCS.
So do they play all-out against the Brewers during those last three
games if the Brewers still have a chance of catching Toronto, or do
they showcase some rookies during those final three games and rest
the starters?
 
At this point in the season, I'm not sure I would want to face Eldred
and Bosio.  I vote to go for the knock-out punch and see if Toronto
fares any better this season (maybe Cone can play mediot again and
serve as some inspiration for the A's).
 
 
Of course, I am hoping they showcase the rookies.  I wouldn't mind
seeing Yount, if he retires after this season, have one more shot at
a world series ring.
 
                                    -Jeff
 
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: kbos@carina.unm.edu (Kurt "Some Guy" Bose)
Subject: Re: Archive Site Information...
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 15:34:23 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

Oh, fine.  If Nelson wants to submit his RC/27 lists, he can put Alou and 
Sanders in.  :)

-- 
Kurt Bose (as in Daisy, not Rose) * kbos@carina.unm.edu * Make..oh, you know.---
-"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing when it is--
--no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors.  The cause of the other-
---half can be attributed to playing Jose Offerman at short." - John Stuart Mill
From: genetic+@pitt.edu (Dr. Dave)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: AL Rookie of Year Award?
Date: 6 Oct 92 19:35:05 GMT
Organization: Department of Industrial Engineering

Thus spake tedward@cs.cornell.edu (Edward [Ted] Fischer):

>In article <joeb.718377962@cserver> joeb@cserver.plexus.com (Joe Brotz) writes:

>>  8) putting infielders out of position when they have to cover
>>     the attempted stolen base (turns an out into a hit).

>(8) certainly results in extra hits, but it also takes some away.  How
>many line-drives up the middle are turned into easy DPs each year?
>The net effect is probably positive, but is it that big a deal?


There's another effect here that people don't talk about much, especially
in the case of hit-and-run.  If you hit-and-run, the most important
consequence of the move (IMHO) is that the batter is required to try to put
*this* particular pitch into play.  In other words, you have deliberately
deprived the hitter of the good hitter's greatest weapon: selectivity.

Now, if the guy at the plate has no selectivity, this may be an excellent
strategy, maximizing his chances of hitting safely and of advancing the
runner.  But if your *team*, as a whole, is so unselective as to be improved
AS A TEAM by a lot of hit-and-run baseball, then you've got more problems
than H&R is going to cure.  Unless you have a whole team of Kirby Pucketts,
in which case you don't care...

So, my guess is that hit-and-run only improves the OBP of bad hitters, and
probably hurts the OBP of good hitters by quite a bit.  Comments?

-- 
       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: genetic+@pitt.edu (Dr. Dave)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: NL ROY: More Fuel for Debate
Date: 2 Oct 92 17:58:32 GMT
Organization: Department of Industrial Engineering

Thus spake claudius@leland.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu):

>But isn't it believable that Bonds might contribute almost 80 runs to his
>team?  This is what you get if you multiply the difference of his RC/27 with
>the average with the number of outs he made divided by 27.  (77, actually.)

That's not what I get.

Using numbers a week or two old, I have

	Bonds:	142 RC, 305 outs, 12.6 RC/27

	Pirates: ~672 RC, 4.7 RC/27

	Average LF: 4.8 RC/27, 68 RC (scaled to Bonds's plate appearances)

	Pirates - Bonds: 545 RC, 4.18 RC/27

	Pirates - Bonds + Average LF: 614 RC, 4.25 RC/27.

According to this, replacing Bonds with an average LF for Bonds's plate
appearances would have cost the Pirates about 78 runs, which is real close
to the number you give above.

However, trying to derive your number, I get:

(Bonds's RC/27 - Average LF's RC/27) = 7.8

305 outs @ 7.8 RC/27 = 88 runs, which is a full 15% overestimate.

If you think my RC calculations are flawed, could you please go through the
same sequence of comparisons using your own?

-- 
       David Tate        |"Out of the dugout endlessly swinging,
 dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu | Out of the manager's throat, the sound fundamentals,
 Prof. of Story Problems | Out of the six-month season..."            
 Member ORSA, TIMS, SABR | 	Walt "Lefty" Whitman
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: claudius@leland.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu)
Subject: Re: Lighten up!
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 92 00:02:22 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.121052.1364@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> z_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
>	I don't mind someone disagreeing with me, or having their own opinion.
>Its when some people also add "you idiot, you shouldn't be on this newsgroup if
>you don't think like me". There is no reason for the rudeness that goes on, and
>it is usually started and perpetuated by the statheads, usually involving
>something like "I am right, you are wrong, here are 43 pages of advanced
>statistics to back me up, so shut up and go home".

Hmmm.  I believe the kind of statement below is more common on this newsgroup
than the kind that you mentioned above.

"How can anyone say that Fielder is not the MVP?  He's got bundles of RBIs.
If you think otherwise, you don't know baseball."

===============================================================================
GO CALIFORNIA ANGELS!
===============================================================================
Nelson Lu (claudius@leland.stanford.edu)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Date: Monday, 28 Sep 1992 19:40:01 EST
From: <RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Elias/STATS projections
 <92272.184124RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu>

when i said, "they should stick to stats, and give up on predictions"
i meant statistics, not stats inc.  but you probably figured that out
anyway.
Xref: sparky rec.sport.baseball:28678 soc.culture.japan:8455