HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sgs@milton.u.washington.edu (Steven Smith)
Subject: Birthdays
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 18:05:00 GMT

Baseball Birthdays

October 5
Jim "Sarge" Bagby, 1887
Sam West, 1904
Aurelio "Senor Smoke" Lopez, 1948 (RIP)
Si Kenneth Johnson, 1906
Onix Concepcion, 1958
Randy Bush, 1958
Andy Kosco, 1941

--Steve

-- 
 sgs@u.washington.edu             * 
 Steve Smith                      * "We want a pitcher, not a belly itcher." 
 University of Washington HR-20   *    			-- Bill Plummer
 Seattle, WA 98195                *
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: RG's 1992 Tribe Front Office Report Card
From: f67700241@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (Greg Franklin)
Date: 6 Oct 92 00:18:19 MST
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
Nntp-Posting-User: f67700241

In article <Oct.6.00.13.47.1992.20386@pilot.njin.net>, gajarsky@pilot.njin.net (Bob Gajarsky) writes:
> i think that their releasing jerry browne was foolhardy.

I do wonder why the Indians couldn't have got something for him....after all
he hit .299 and ~.270 with good OBP in 1989 and 1990.  But watching him a
little bit with the A's, I think he's regressed as a hitter. I could see why
Cleveland didn't want him at the salary he was scheduled to make.

> the guy is born in 1966, and has put up decent numbers WHEN GIVEN
>  the opportunity!  i don't know why the a's put him in the outfield - 
>  he always played a nice level secoond base, and with full time
>  playing time would be a 290 hitter, with some walks, and very minor
>  power (more than luis polonia, in other words).  which isn't great,
>  but from your second baseman, it's nice numbers.

I've heard his defense was below average, particularly on the DP.  In
Oakland playing in the OF was mostly to replace injured outfielders
Rickey and Jose (Willie Wilson had replaced Hendu).  As Valentine said,
he's a poor man's Tony Phillips and will likely get another chance to
hit .300 elsewhere--not in Oakland.

> true, the indians have baerga.  and they have thome at third, and
>  lewis at short (if they wanted them).  but browne could have played
>  short if lewis couldn't...or baerga could have, and browne at second...
>  or other possibilities.

Aw, it seems you're nitpicking.  It was a damn good team review.  r.s.bb needs
more quality posters like RG!
-- 
Greg "Mockingbird" Franklin      Interviewer: "Sir, how do you spell relief?"
f67700241@ccit.arizona.edu               Dan: "R-O-L-A-I-D-S-E."

"[George Bush is] the most ruthless white man in the history of the planet."
	-- Richard Ben Cramer, author of _What It Takes_
"The President scores much better than Bill Clinton."
	-- Dan, comparing Bush's record of marital infidelity to Clinton's
From: genetic+@pitt.edu (Dr. Dave)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Greatest Seasons, by position
Date: 28 Sep 92 20:18:08 GMT
Organization: Department of Industrial Engineering

Thus spake niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent):
>
>Correct me if I'm way off base, Dave, but unless I'm mistaken, you used
>T&P's TPR for this post.  The reason TPR looks screwy is because T&P put
>their own, ahem, creative, evaluation of fielding into TPR.

Absolutely.  On the other hand, they really believe their own stuff, and
my characterization of these as their opinions about greatest (or, in this
case, "most valuable") seasons ever is accurate.

>Is there *any* reason to believe T&Ps fielding numbers are accurate?  

To quote Douglas Adams, "None at all."  The DA work over the past 4 years
has shown conclusively (to me, at least) that you can't get even approximate
estimates of fielding prowess without actually counting opportunities, since
the variation in opportunities is as big as the variation in abilities.  And
this doesn't even address the problems at catcher and first base.  Catcher
effect on staff run average is probably the biggest single term in overall
catcher value, and there's no even approximate way to measure it.



-- 
       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: tedward@cs.cornell.edu (Edward [Ted] Fischer)
Subject: Re: AL Rookie of Year Award?
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 18:17:11 GMT

In article <1acj2oINNl7k@uwm.edu> paul@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Paul R Krueger) writes:
>
>     No, I'm saying that if you leave all of Milwaukee's stats the same,
>     (HR, BA, etc) and substitute Rivera for Listach, Clark for Molitor,
>     etc., when running the bases, Milwaukee's performance would be much
>     worse to the tune of about 20 games. 

Okay, I think I get it.  Using recreational softball rules, we
pinch-run the appropriate Red Sox player at every opportunity.  (You
know, where you get a pinch-runner from the plate for somebody who is
either very injured or very overweight.)

>>Do you really think that baserunning is the *only* difference between
>>Milwaukee and Boston?)
>
>    No, I think batting average and plenty of other things factor into
>    it. I wasn't proposing a team-for-team trade at any place other than
>    the basepaths.

Okay, is there *any* aspect where the Red Sox are *superior* to the
Brewers?  They have a worse ERA, far worse defense, more strikeouts,
fewer sac flies, fewer HRs, fewer extra base hits (and I know that
some of the Brewers extra base hits are legged, but not *that* many),
and they are 25 points short on batting average!  In fact the only
significant way that the Red Sox are *better* than the Brewers is in
BB, where the Sox have ~75 more.  (But the Sox still have a lower
OBP.)

I'd say that EVEN WITHOUT baserunning, it is obvious that the Brewers
have the superior team.  So why do you think that the Brewers would
suddenly become as bad as the Red Sox if you changed only that *one*
aspect of the game?  Seems to me that even if the Brewers ran like the
Red Sox, they would still out-hit, out-slug, out-pitch, and out-field
the Red Sox.  So wouldn't you expect them to win more games?

Or are you really arguing that the Red Sox have just as good hitters,
fielders, and pitchers (just not runners)?  Please elaborate on that.
This should be an argument worth hearing!

Cheers,
-Valentine
-- 
Make outs, not walks!					tedward@cs.cornell.edu
Clemens four Cy Young!
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: franjion@spot.Colorado.EDU (John Franjione)
Subject: Cal Eldred: what does the future hold?
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 19:35:16 GMT

Well, Cal Eldred won his 10th game in a row last night against the
Mariners.  Eldred is now 11-1 with an ERA of about 1.40 or so.

What is the historical precedent for such a performance?  What other
pitchers have come up in mid-season and pitched this well?  Based on
these pitchers, what can we expect from Cal in the future?

The last pitcher coming up and appearing this god-like that I can
remember is Calvin Schiraldi 1986.  And we all know what happened to
him.

John Franjione
From: zuhars@madrone.eecs.ucdavis.edu (Gary Didi Seven Huckabay)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: WAY outside the norms...
Date: 1 Oct 92 00:44:43 GMT
Organization: Lance Blankenship Appreciation Society (BB Division)

Mike "Tanner: Fester writes:

>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.

I was thinking about this about a year ago.  Intuitively, it seems
like a lot of the statistical tools we have might have real problems
with performances that are extreme in their nature - Frank Thomas
drawing 170 walks, for example, or Barry Bonds pulling a .470 OBP or
something.

DANGER: UNSUPPORTED SPECULATION.

I would imagine that certain things would LOSE value as you acquired
so much of them or it that it's way outside the normal realm.  For
example, walks.  And other things, like SB-CS or HR, would have
INCREASED marginal value as you got WAY out there on the spectrum.

Anyone want to get together and help me do a semi-serious study?  A
few hours of delving TB II could probably do the trick.  In
particular, I'm interested in looking at (for hitters) BB, HR, 2B, and
SB-CS.

Can anyone suggest a good starting point?  I was thinking of finding
30-50 of these 'freak' performances (I'll find a definition later),
and finding out how those teams did, in terms of RC versus actual runs
scored.  I realize this is skeletonesque, and subject to several
biases, but might be interesting nonetheless.


-- 
* Gary Huckabay * "We need MORE people in the league.  8 isn't going to *
* "Gurgle. Eep."*  cut it.  It's a blast.  Why would someone NOT want   *
* "Acck.  Unh." *  to play?" "Perhaps because you and Chu always pull   *
* "Jose. Igg."  * rabbits out of your hat at the draft." "Ha.  Fear."   *
From: grabiner@math.harvard.edu (David Grabiner)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Bonds "choke"?
Date: 5 Oct 92 18:41:00 GMT
 <92277.182016JPIERCE@MIAMIU.BITNET><1992Oct4.214410.23833@midway.uchicago.edu><1992Oct5.144730.18495@odin.corp.sgi.com>
Organization: /etc/organization
In-reply-to: kubey@sgi.com's message of 5 Oct 92 14:47:30 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.144730.18495@odin.corp.sgi.com>, Ken Kubey writes:

> In article <1992Oct4.214410.23833@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>>Or could it be, just maybe, that if you take 270 players and have them
>>face the top pitching staffs in the league in short series there is
>>a good random chance that two of them will go 0 for 16?

> Sure.  Note that we are really talking about 0-20.
> Anyone know Gene Tenace's overall BA for the years in question?  

> If my calculator and brain are working right, the chance of a .300 hitter
> going 0-20 is 0.000798 or 0.0798%.

Tenace was never a .300 hitter; he was a good offensive player because
he walked and hit for power.  In the five years that the A's won the
division, he hit .274, .225, .259, .211, .255.  That's a .245 average,
which would probably go down to .222 facing only the better starters on
a good team.  The chance that Tenace would go 0 for 20 in a specific
series of LCS at-bats is .00656.

Likewise, the Bonds predicted BA is too high, and chance of an 0-20
streak too low; he doesn't get to face the fifth starters on last-place
teams.  .002 for a *specific* streak of 20 AB is probably closer.

But these probabilities don't mean much in isolation; look at the sample
size.  Bonds had a particular streak in which he went 0-20.  The streak
would have been just as interesting if it had been his last 12 at-bats
in 1990 and his first 8 in 1991, or if it had been Van Slyke, or if it
had been Jose Canseco in the 1988 ALCS and World Series, or Canseco in
the 1988 ALCS and 1989 ALCS.  

Given the number of places that you could have found an interesting
streak, the fact that you found one with probability .002 doesn't
suggest that something unusual is happening.


--
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.
From: steph@cs.uiuc.edu (Dale Stephenson)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Morris: more fuel for this debate
Date: 29 Sep 92 22:46:20 GMT
Article-I.D.: pegasus.steph.717806780
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL

In <6433@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> genetic+@pitt.edu (Dr. Dave) writes:

>Thus spake stlouis@unixg.ubc.ca (Phill St. Louis):
>>In Sunday's game, Morris pitched 4+ innings and then had to sit 2 hours
>>for a rain delay.  He had a 9-run lead at the time (but why penalize him
>>for this??).  He returned to finish the 5th and then pitched the 6th, giving
>>up 0 runs, 0 ERs, 3 hits and 1 walk.  Morris wins his 20th and he did it in
>>New York.  His ERA is now 3.99.

>It was a fine performance, but again goes to show that the people who say
>that Morris is tough when he most needs to be tough, and relaxes when he has
>a cushion, just don't know what they're talking about.  If there was ever a
>time when Jack *could* have (even *should* have) let up, it was with a 9-run
>lead in the rain...

No, no, this is a perfect example of his veteran savvy.  Knowing that they
desparately needed to get enough innings for an official game, he cannily
shut the opposition out.  Unfortunately, his teammates didn't understand
the strategy (except for the wily Alfredo Griffin), and foolishly wasted
time scoring 8 more runs than they needed.

:-> for the humor impaired.
--
Dale J. Stephenson |*| (steph@cs.uiuc.edu) |*| Baseball fanatic

  "It is considered good to look wise, especially when not 
   overburdened with information" -- J. Golden Kimball
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: spira@panix.com (Greg Spira)
Subject: Re: SDCNs Rejoice
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 05:50:48 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC

In article <lsmith.718074165@myria> lsmith@myria.cs.umn.edu (Lance "Squiddie" Smith) writes:
>Well, we're getting down to the big day for SDCNs. Not the World Series.
>That's meaningless after all. No, in just a few short days the end of 
>the season statistics will be published and oh the calculating we shall
>do!
>
>Seriously, I was looking through a pop culture (read comic book) distributors 
>catalog for December and they're already listing STATS products for 1993. 
>Along with the The Major and Minor League Handbooks (which the average SDCN
>will find indispensable), STATS is also offering something new this year
>called Player Profiles. The frightening thought is this might have the same
>sort of details they included about a few players in last year's Major League
>Handbook. Or maybe it will just be the stuff that Elias puts out every year.
>(Either way, it probably means we no longer need to buy Elias, right?)
>
>Anyone closer to STATS or the book biz know anything about this? 

Well, I think the Major League Handbook and the Profiles book are both
available Nov. 1, and the Minor League Handbook either then or two weeks
later.  The Handbooks are $17.95 each, I think.  I think Stats gives you
a $1 off every book if you order more than one.  I'm expecting an order
form in the mail from STATS tomorrow for these books (and for the Scouting
Report and Scoreboard books they'll publish in the spring) and I'll post
any information I get.

Greg 

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: shadow@r-node.gts.org (Jay Chu)
Subject: Re: Jack is a winner
Organization: R-node Public Access UNIX Information System (416-249-5366)
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 22:20:36 GMT

In article <19om09INN47i@uwm.edu> paul@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Paul R Krueger) writes:
>
> Flame away if you want, but I guarantee you can't find one general manager
> or player that would want to face Morris late in the year, no matter what
> the stats say. 
>
> --salty
>

Well salty, I'm with you.  This is exactly why Jack Morris is a winner.
Who gives a damn about ERA if you consistently lose games.  No matter
how high the ERA is, if at the end of 9 innings, you get the W, you have
done your job right, and YOU ARE A WINNER.  This may depend on luck.  Who
knows.  But Jack Morris is a valuable asset to the Jays.

-- 
        ______                shadow@r-node.gts.org
       | |__| |   If it's there and you can see it       - it's real
       |  ()  |   If it's there and you can't see it     - it's transparent
       |______|   If it's not there and you can't see it - you erased it!
Date: Thursday, 1 Oct 1992 01:28:38 EST
From: <RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Bonds "choke"?
 <1ad5f1INN4b0@renoir.hal.COM> <1992Sep30.225111.26316@odin.corp.sgi.com>
 <1992Oct1.020833.9870@Princeton.EDU>

it is stupid to say bonds is a choke player because he batted .002 or
whatever in the lcs, because the sample space is really really small.

it is stupid to say bell is a clutch player because he batted five zillion
or whatever, because, again, the sample space is really really small.

however, it seems to me that a lot of people are going beyond this, and
saying, "there is no such thing as a choke or a clutch player.  you're
an idiot if you think there is."

i just can't see how you can deny any of the following statements:

   1) ballplayers are humans, not robots.

   2) different humans react differently to pressure.  some react well,
      some react poorly.

   3) there is a hell of a lot of pressure during the post-season.

those three things, in my mind, at least, add up to "there are choke
players, and there are clutch players."

i honestly don't see how anyone can deny this.

of course, i don't think that you can accurately say WHO is a choke player
and WHO is a clutch player, because of the small sample spaces.

but this is a far cry from saying there is no such beast.


Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: snichols@adobe.com (Sherri Nichols)
Subject: Re: Lead off walks....
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 20:18:04 GMT

In article <2312@h.cs.wvu.wvnet.edu> hobbs@a.cs.wvu.wvnet.edu (Gerald R Hobbs) writes:
>Looking at the single/walk/error part of the above I'm inclined to
>think we are looking at noise.

I agree.

>doesn't have good stuff, ergo more runs. The error part is
>interesting though. Evidently the pitcher 1) threw strikes and
>2) induced the batter to hit a playable ball so why should the 
>scoring rates be higher? Well, two things come to mind. The error
>may have been a more than one base error (of course a single can
>be followed by by a same play error too). The other is that the 
>sample size for the error line above is probably pretty small
>and so the resulting estimate isn't very precise.

I would tend to guess (2) more than (1).  I posted some numbers a while
back about infield errors and how often the hitter ended up beyond first on
an infield error, and it was about 7% of the time.

Sherri Nichols
snichols@adobe.com
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: ecaxron@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Ron Graham)
Subject: Re: R.S.BB FAQ V1.22 (9/25/92)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date:  3 Oct 1992 11:24 EST  

In article <1992Oct2.160824.19326@adobe.com>, snichols@adobe.com 
     (Sherri Nichols) writes...

>In article <1992Oct2.041512.25458@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca> 
>     91287041@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Roger Maynard) writes:

>>>Read a dictionary, Roger.  "Prominent" means readily noticeable,
   [blar, blar, blar deleted...]

>>I see the words "distinguished" and "important" in my dictionary.  Aren't
>>they in yours?  [more blar, blar, blar deleted...]

This thread once had something remotely to do with baseball.  I see neither
of you are responsible for that.  Chill out.

RG

"I don't know how [the Indians] lose.  I really don't."  -  John Smiley
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: bert@ide.com (Bert Beaton)
Subject: Re: PIRATES AGIAIN!!!
Organization: Interactive Development Environments, SF
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 19:12:00 GMT

In article <kelrH_S00WBOQ6ZH4o@andrew.cmu.edu> Eric Alva Dunmire <ed19+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>
>
>CLINCHED 3rd STRAIGHT !!!!
>
>
>ANY QUESTIONS!!!!!!!!
>
>

Just one... will they make it to the Series THIS time??


-- 
Bert Beaton                        		E-MAIL: bert@ide.com
Interactive Development Environments		PHONE: (415) 543-0900 
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: pablo@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Pablo A Iglesias)
Subject:  Ralph Kiner
Organization: HAC - Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 13:04:01 GMT


I was talking to another of the professors in our dept who grew up
in Pittsburgh in the 50's about Kiner.  He remembers seeing him
play at Forbes field.  I told him about the amazing years Kiner had
early in his carreer, which made me think.  Why did Kiner only play
10 years?  Did he somewhat lose it?  I know that he was traded, but 
from memory, his numbers didn't seem that bad in his final years. 
Was Forbes field a very good hitters park?

-Pablo
-- 
Pablo
From: valentin@midnight-blue.cis.pitt.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: My prediction for Bonds
Date: 1 Oct 92 03:53:18 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Sep30.230048.27480@odin.corp.sgi.com>, kubey@sgi.com (Ken Kubey) writes:

> Importance of a game:
> 
> Average Regular Season Game:          1
.
.
.
> WS Game 7                          2000
> 
> Importance of a plate appearance:
> Choke index = Expected Clutch Points Index / Total Clutch Points

With no disresprect intended....

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Have you been playing too much Nintendo? "Bonus Multipliers" !?!?

There is no question that Bonds performed poorly in the last two 
NLCS's. The question is, is there something about Bonds that 
*causes* this?  And can you predict that Bonds will perform poorly 
again with any certainty? All the indications are clearly no, 
you can't. Besides, of course, the fact that he'll be facing the 
best lefty pitching in the league. Bonds hits lefties pretty well,
but the Braves staff is particularly good, so we might expect that 
he won't hit them at his league average. 

I'll go out on a limb here, by invoking the gambler's fallacy I'll say
that Bonds will have an excellent series -- after all, he's due.  
10 hits, four walks, 2 homers, 2 doubles, 3 SB, two outstanding catches, 
one baserunner Kill, 3 units of intimidation, 2 hotdog trots around the 
bases, one altercation with a teammate (after all, he's playing 
so "intense"), seven looks of determination, dozens of "really good cuts," 
and one LCS MVP. 


Shawn
From: tedward@cs.cornell.edu (Edward [Ted] Fischer)
Subject: Red Sox woes to end?
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 15:54:35 GMT


I posted a more in-depth analysis on the Red Sox mailing list,
but I thought I'd share the primary observation here:

1) Sort the Red Sox offensive players by OPS.

2) Cut at Plantier.

3) In the list above, we get Wedge, Cooper, Boggs, Valentin, Vaughn,
Plantier, Burks, Brunansky, and Zupcic.  Lyons also makes this list,
but only because he has so few PA.

4) In the list below, we get everybody else.  In particular,
Greenwell, Hatcher, Winningham, Clark, Reed, Rivera, Naehring, and
Pena have all seen significant numbers of AB.

5) If you take *this* year's stats of everybody on the first list
(minus Boggs, and plus Reed), they have a quality starting nine.  Not
a first-place offense, but far from last.

6) I expect improvements from Cooper, Vaughn, Plantier, and Reed to
offset a drop out of Brunansky.

*THIS* is why I have hope for the Red Sox.  They could have had a
half-decent offense *this* year if they simply played the best men
available.  And next year (with the hopeful return of at least one of
Greenwell, Plantier, Quintana, and Burks from injuries) they should
be better.

And that's without any new free agent signings.  (Though I'm assuming
they keep Brunansky.  I'm not particularly in favor of it, but the
management is.)

There's still some hope for this team.  Now, can we get a real hitting
coach and an intelligent manager?  Hobson is better than Morgan, but
not by much.

Cheers,
-Valentine
-- 
Make outs, not walks!					tedward@cs.cornell.edu
Clemens four Cy Young!
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball