HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mjw@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Michael Wolverton)
Subject: Re: AL Game Score Report through 9/21 Part 1
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 00:38:39 GMT

In article <6412@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> genetic+@pitt.edu (Dr. Dave) writes:
>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.  

Could you summarize this work?  I did a little study a few months ago
which indicates exactly the opposite (and someday I may even get
around to posting it :-), so I'd be interested in hearing about any
other results.  I'm aware of some number crunching that Nick Flynn
posted here a while back.  Is there anything else?

-Michael
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Wolverton                       "Is that clear?"
mjw@cs.stanford.edu                     "No, but it's consistent!"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: carl@warper.jhuapl.edu (Carl Lamy)
Subject: Re: Which team is most improved???
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
Date:  2 Oct 92 14:03:00 GMT

Here's a vote from and Orioles fan for the Cleveland Indians. They already
have won 20 more games this year than last, they are convincingly out of the
basemant in the AL East with a better record than Detroit, New York and
Boston (while NY and the Bosox have received "Most improved" votes here)
and they have improved every month. Their record per month:

April 8-15  May 11-16  June 12-15  July 13-13  August 16-12 and so far
are 15-13 in September with 3 to play.

			See you later, Carl

INET: carl@warper.jhuapl.edu
UUCP: {backbone!}mimsy!aplcomm!warper!carl
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Lead off walks....
From: grabiner@math.harvard.edu (David Grabiner)
Date: 30 Sep 92 18:41:02 EDT
Organization: /etc/organization
In-reply-to: z_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu's message of 30 Sep 92 21:36:20 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.153621.1287@ccsvax.sfasu.edu>, z writes:
>> Effect of first event in inning, both leagues, 1984-1991
>> 
>> Leadoff		Prob of >= 1 run	Avg. number of runs
>> -------------------------------------------------------------
>> single		.428			.855
>> walk			.432			.865
>> error		.441			.867
>> out			.156			.255
>> other		.742		       1.215
>>                       

> 	Okay, time for bad-but-possible-explaination-time:

> 	The avergae pitcher gives up a hit an inning. If a pitcher gives
> up a single to lead off the inning, there is a good chance there won't
> be another hit that inning. OTOH, if the pitcher leads off yeilding a
> walk, the batting team still has that hit they are likely to pick up
> later in the inning.

This is the gambler's fallacy.  The chance that a coin will land heads
does not depend on the previous flip.  Likewise, the chance that a team
will get a hit in the current inning does not depend on what happened in
the earlier part of the inning.

My explanation, aside from the small sample size, is that the average
leadoff walk is given up by a worse pitcher than the average leadoff
single, and in a better part of the lineup.  (The leadoff hitter is more
likely to score following a walk than the #5 hitter is, and he probably
draws more walks.  The ratio of singles is not as large.)

> A leadoff hitter reaching on an error has
> basically just given his team (or rather, the fielder has) an extra out to play
> with, so is even more likely to score.

Again, this doesn't make sense.  The team gets an extra out for the
error, but that's just a returned out which the player should have given
away.  The error might put the batter on second, which increases his
chance of scoring.




--
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: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Bonds "choke"?
Date: 30 Sep 92 12:14:25 GMT
Article-I.D.: Princeto.1992Sep30.121425.1596
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <1992Sep30.055359.308@odin.corp.sgi.com> kubey@sgi.com (Ken Kubey) writes:
>In article <1992Sep29.223917.682@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Sep29.005602.528@odin.corp.sgi.com> kubey@sgi.com (Ken Kubey) writes:
>>>How bad will Barry Bonds choke in the 1992 NLCS?

>>>My predicions:  BA: .220  R: 3  HR: 1  RBI: 3  SB: 2 

>>Looks like a long series if Bonds is going to get 50 AB (and that doesn't
>>even include walks...)

>Sorry, make that .222  (4 for 18)  

How many walks in there?  Assuming a close Series, that could be nine
walks, i.e., an OBP of .480something.  That plus two singles, a double,
and a homer gives an SLG of .444, an OPS of .9something, and a rather odd
definition of "choke."

>>>Extra Disclaimer:  I have nothing against the Pirates, their fans, 
>>>or Mr. Bonds.  I just happen to believe in clutch hitters and 
>>>choke hitters and I believe that Mr. Bonds will choke again.

You haven't shown that he choked before.  What's that "Again"?  Is every
poor performance a choke?  Or does good opposition pitching sometimes
have something to do with it?  Or even luck, on occasion?

>>Like Reggie Jackson's 3 for 18 in his first three World Series?

>Did Reggie's team lose any of those Series?

Is everyone here on drugs? Reggie went 22 for 63 in his first three Series.
With ten walks, 7 HR, 5 doubles.

Actually, that's his first *four* Series.  In 1972 he got his ring by
sitting on the bench, injured.

Now, as to your question, why wouldn't 0-for-20 in a win be a choke?

(Reggie went 5 for 33 in the 73-74 LCS, and 2 for 22 in his last two LCS,
btw.  They won one of those two, lost the other.  The 82 is thus a choke.)

Oh, how well do you have to hit when losing for your hitting *not* to
be a choke?  After all, if you go 19 for 20, and your one out, transformed
into a homer, would have won, isn't that a choke? 

Come back when you can *define* choke.

>How many WS rings does Jackson have?   How many does Bonds have?

Who cares ?  Lots of TEAMS have won World Series with poor performances
from a hitting star.  No INDIVIDUAL has ever won a WS, so cut the "rings"
bullshit.  Jackson hit well in all 5 WS he played in, and was on the winning
side four times.  What does this mean about the fifth one?  (For the record,
Jackson was on the losing side in four LCS.  What does THAT mean?)

Roger
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: cs902060@ariel.yorku.ca (GEOFFREY E DIAS)
Subject: Attendence figures
Organization: York University, Toronto, Canada
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 21:06:00 GMT


	I just read in the newspaper that the Skydome in Toronto had
only 35,000 unsold seats in the entire season! I wonder how many stadiums
had this figure for one game?
Date: Monday, 28 Sep 1992 19:36:09 EST
From: <RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Expos logo

the expos' logo is indeed an m.  for montreal.
the colored parts are "eb" and stand for "expo baseball."

this is the official explanation.

personally, i find it amazing that whoever came up with this logo failed
to notice the "l" between the "e" and the "b".  but that's just me.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: rstimets@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (robert and stimets)
Subject: Re: Better than Runs
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 18:50:09 GMT

[Deletions, deletions, deletions]
>|
>
>I think that this example is unrealistic because the number of runs scored
>is too high.  If team A scored one run every 2 innings, and team B scored
>4 or 5 runs in one inning every 9 innings, the numbers might be more realistic.
>In particular, having team A always score nine runs a game causes the 90%
>win rate to be way off.  Why not try the following?
>
>	Team A scores 1000 runs an inning.
>	Team B scores 9000 runs one inning every nine innings.
>
WOW!
Think of the beer sales at one of these games!
How many pitchers does a team have to go through in order to retire 1003 batters?
(No, I'm not referring to beer here, but then again...)

>Now team A wins 100% of their games, and team B wins around 65% of their
>games.

RStimets
From: mlbruce@husc8.harvard.edu (Matthew Bruce)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Which team is most improved???
Date: 2 Oct 92 05:30:04 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc8.mlbruce.718003804
Distribution: usa

crobbins@lonestar.utsa.edu (Chris S. Robbins) writes:


>Lets start a debate.  Which team has improved the most this year.

>Personally, I say the Astros.  Why?  1. Their record compared to last year.
>2. The road trip from hell (12-14) made them a better team for the future
>(i.e. built some character)

>I know there will be different opinions, so lets hear them.

Very well then. I agree with you about the Astros' improvement, except
that Montreal seems to have improved even more. Granted, they may already
have had the talent to win, but it took a Felipe Alou to make them do it.
And while we're at it with inspiring managers, how 'bout the scrappy Brew
Crew as a Lock for AL most-improved?

>chris

>--
>Chris Robbins
>Sigma Tau Gamma
>University of Texas- San Antonio
>1990-91 TransAmerica Athletic Conference Regular Season Basketball Champions
>1991-92 Southland Conference Regular Season Basketball Champions
>1992-93 ???
>(I know it's basketball, but we just got baseball here last year!)
From: dsimon@atlas.nafb.trw.com
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: What is OPS?
Date: 1 Oct 92 20:49:35 GMT

What is OPS?
From: genetic+@pitt.edu (Dr. Dave)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Why *is* OBP more valuable than SLG?
Date: 28 Sep 92 18:12:09 GMT
Organization: Department of Industrial Engineering

Thus spake gajarsky@pilot.njin.net (Bob Gajarsky):
>
>can anyone explain WHY (with reasoning, or whatever) why OBP is
> considered more valuable than SLG?  

Two possible justifications:

1. Empirical: historically, given two teams with similar OPS, the one with
   the higher OPS has tended to score more runs.

2. Related Theory: in the Runs Created model of team scoring, OBP and SLG
   contribute to team runs through their product.  For a given OPS, this
   product is maximized when OBP=SLG.  Since OBP < SLG in almost every real
   team season, raising OBP ten points closes the gap, while raises SLG ten
   points widens it.  Thus, the points of OBP are more valuable if the RC
   model is roughly correct.  At current levels of league OBP and SLG, for
   an average team the marginal value of a point of OBP is about 1.3 times
   that of a point of SLG, according to the RC model.


-- 
       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: aardvark@locus.com (Warren Usui)
Subject: Re: Lead off walks....
Organization: Locus Computing Corporation, Los Angeles, California
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 1992 22:41:30 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.233148.1297@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> z_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
|In article <GRABINER.92Sep30183837@germain.harvard.edu>, grabiner@math.harvard.edu (David Grabiner) writes:
|> In article <1992Sep30.153621.1287@ccsvax.sfasu.edu>, z writes:
|> 
|>> 	Okay, time for bad-but-possible-explaination-time:
|> 
|>> 	The avergae pitcher gives up a hit an inning. If a pitcher gives
|>> up a single to lead off the inning, there is a good chance there won't
|>> be another hit that inning. OTOH, if the pitcher leads off yeilding a
|>> walk, the batting team still has that hit they are likely to pick up
|>> later in the inning.
|> 
|> This is the gambler's fallacy.  The chance that a coin will land heads
|> does not depend on the previous flip.  Likewise, the chance that a team
|> will get a hit in the current inning does not depend on what happened in
|> the earlier part of the inning.
|
|	No, it is not gambler's fallacy; the chance of a team getting two hits
|in an inning is less than the chance of them getting one hit in an inning.
|

No. No. No. No. No.  The chance of a team getting one hit in a given inning
is about the same chance as a team getting two hits in an inning given that
the lead off batter already got a hit.  The only reason why the odds are
a little different is due to the fact that the guy who got a hit may be
out while running the bases.

All this discussion reminds me of a story about a guy who called up the 
airlines and asked "What are the odds that there will be a bomb on the plane?"
The airlines said "about a 1000 to 1".  He then asked what are the odds of
two bombs being on the same plane.  The airlines said "about a million to 1".
"Oh, I like those odds better" he said.  He then brought a bomb on the plane
so he could get the million to one odds.

-- 
Warren Usui
aardvark@locus.com
uunet!lcc!aardvark

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: drraymon@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca (Darrell Raymond)
Subject: Re: Playoff Tickets
Keywords: $$
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 16:36:39 GMT

In article <9967@ncrwat.Waterloo.NCR.COM> aclark@53iss5.Waterloo.NCR.COM (Allen Clark) writes:
> 
> 4) They did not accept any credit cards or personal cheques.  This
> forced me to spend even more money on a money order.

  Count yourself lucky.  The stupid post office that made out my money 
orders reversed the day and the month, thus issuing me monery orders dated 
for the 9th day of the 13th month.  The Jays ticket office called me up 
and offered to send the tickets only if they got another money order within
two days.  So it cost me another $10 in courier and money order fees, and 
for a while there I had $600 invested in money orders. 

  Now the interesting part will be convincing Canada Post that they should
refund not only the value of the money order, but also the fee they levied
to issue it.

-Darrell.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: ecaxron@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Ron Graham)
Subject: Re: Question about AL position pitchers in batting lineup
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date:  6 Oct 1992 15:30 EST  

In article <1992Oct6.082535.11664@terminator.cc.umich.edu>, 
     rdunkle@engin.umich.edu (R. M. Dunkle) writes...

>	So, if the right fielder was batting sixth, and the DH second, and
>the DH went in to play right field, he would still bat second, and the pitcher
>would bat sixth. 
>	It actually happens pretty often, maybe a few times a year, per team.
>Usually it's a case of the only guy left who can play a position being the 
>DH. Say the second baseman gets injured, and the only other 2b was DHing. Or
>maybe it's a blowout, and the manager wants to rest everyone.
>	This late in the season, with a million guys riding the bench, I'd
>guess blowout, but I didn't notice the box score, so...

The final was 4-3, in extra innings.  But hindsight is always 20-20 ;-).

RG

"Mumble mumble fans in Cleveland mumble mumble baseball mumble 200 hits."
 -  Carlos Baerga, in a radio interview
From: paul@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Paul R Krueger)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: AL Rookie of Year Award?
Date: 30 Sep 1992 16:20:05 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4

In article <1992Sep30.065757.25773@cs.cornell.edu> tedward@cs.cornell.edu (Edward [Ted] Fischer) writes:
>
>Sorry, you are still talking out your ass on this one.  (Not to put it
>too bluntly or anything.)  The Brewers are only 20 games ahead of the
>Red Sox, so you are essentially saying that if the Brewers didn't run
>the bases like they have, that they would turn *into* the Red Sox.
   
   Yeah, that is what I'm saying (almost, but they have too much talent
   to be that bad). The Brewers, as a team are hitting .24 points higher
   than the Sox. You can attribute at least .15 of those points to the
   running game. 

   What is Brett Butler, about a .280 hitter? You take away his speed and
   he's a .240 hitter. Take away his 10 bunt singles and 10 infield hits
   a year that he gets and his average goes way down. Every single Brewer
   hitter has benefitted greatly from the success of the running game. It
   doesn't matter who's on base (Milwaukee has 11 guys with 10 or more
   steals), whoever is at the plate is bound to get more fastballs and less
   attention from the pitcher because that pitcher is worried about the
   runner.
   
   I'm not talking out of my ass. Although a 20 game difference might be
   a stretch, 15 definitely would not be.  

   <stuff deleted>
   And no, it has nothing to do with the pitching or the defense, I'm only
   talking about the baserunning.

   --salty
    
>-Valentine
From: jblixt@neon.cdc.com (Jon Blixt)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: BAERGA best AL 2d base ever?
Date: 5 Oct 92 00:07:29 GMT
Reply-To: jblixt@mips.COM (Jon Blixt)
Organization: People fed up with politicians, not politics

In article <1992Oct4.222718.11231@cs.cornell.edu> tedward@cs.cornell.edu (Edward [Ted] Fischer) writes:
>In article <1992Oct4.175048.19355@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
##BATTERS       BA   SLG   OBP   G  AB   R   H  TB 2B 3B HR RBI  BB  SO SB CS  E
##BAERGA,C    .309  .454  .350 154 628  88 194 285 29  1 20 103  32  73 10  2 18
##WHITAKER,L  .281  .469  .391 126 437  76 123 205 25  0 19  70  80  45  5  4  9
##KNOBLAUCH,C .301  .360  .385 148 572  99 172 206 18  5  2  54  82  59 32 12  5
##ALOMAR,R    .310  .423  .405 148 558 102 173 236 26  8  7  73  85  51 47  9  5
#
#In this bunch, only Alomar truly stands out.  He doesn't have as much
#HR power, but he has a lot of 2B+3B, steals bases extremely well,
#walks almost three times as much, and uses fewer outs.  Toss in those
#extra ~120 AB of a backup player, and Whitaker doesn't look so hot.
#Knoblauch is nice, but really a poor man's Alomar.
#^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Which is exactly what the Twins need, since they can't afford any rich men.:)

#I suspect Defense is also in Alomar's favor.

Please elaborate, Knoblauch has been awful solid at second with IMO good 
range.

#
#Cheers,
#-Valentine

-Jon

SIGN PUCKETT! SIGN PUCKETT! SIGN SMILEY! SIGN PUCKETT! SIGN PUCKETT!
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: carl@warper.jhuapl.edu (Carl Lamy)
Subject: Re: What is baseball?
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
Date: 28 Sep 92 20:10:12 GMT

This arguement seems to be going all over the place. The question is if
pitching is more important than hitting, not if A pitcher is more important
than A hitter.

What I'm getting at is this: There has been discussion about whether pitching
is more consistent per year than hitting. However, I don't see this as
being too great a factor. Why? Because if a pitcher becomes erratic, that is,
less consistent, he's usually replaced (sometimes very quickly). So a
particular pitcher's performance may vary alot, but a team's pitching 
performance probably won't vary too much. Meanwhile, teams usually stay with
a bad hitter because that's who the team has to play a particular position,
so a team's hitting probably varies alot. Oh, hell, I'm even confusing 
myself here, time for the next topic.

Also, one of the problems I have with "Which is better: Hitting or Pitching?"
stems from the fact that there is no way (That I know of, anyway, maybe
someone knows more than me - actually, that's very likely to be the case)
of separating pitching from defense. A good pitcher will make a hitter hit
the ball to where his defense is positioned. Granted, a good hitter will try
to hit 'em where they ain't, but on base percentages still show a dominance
of pitching (and defense) over hitting.

Maybe I'm clouding the issue, but considering a pitcher has a better shot at
making a hitter either strike out or hit the ball to one of his fielders
than a hitter has of walking or getting a hit, it seems that pitching is the
greater part of the game.

			See you later, Carl

INET: carl@warper.jhuapl.edu
UUCP: {backbone!}mimsy!aplcomm!warper!carl
From: shadow@r-node.gts.org (Jay Chu)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Kelly Gruber: sucks or what?
Date: 2 Oct 92 21:32:27 GMT
Organization: R-node Public Access UNIX Information System (416-249-5366)

I have never seen any ML player sucks as bad as Gruber.  Never have this guy
on when there is no out, two on.  Cuz he'll give you a weak chopper for a
double play.  Never have this guy on when the game is on the line, Gruber
will end it sooner.

-- 
        ______                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!
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: kbos@carina.unm.edu (Kurt "Some Guy" Bose)
Subject: Re: Bonds "choke"?
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 92 14:41:55 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <6947@transfer.stratus.com> jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com writes:
>In article <bhap-jg@lynx.unm.edu> kbos@carina.unm.edu (Kurt "Some  
>Guy" Bose) writes:
>> In article <92275.012838RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu>  
><RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu> writes:
>> >   2) different humans react differently to pressure.  some react  
>well,
>> >      some react poorly.
>> 
>> Okay, I agree with every point except number two. 
>
>You disagree with the second point (that some folks do better under
>pressure than others).  I can walk around my office an
>identify easily some people who want to hide under their desk
>when the pressure gets high and others who thrive on it and 
>do their best work in the final week before a deadline.
>Logically, this pressure must be present in baseball, also; the
>players are human, after all, and there's no reason to assume
>that some won't act better under pressure than others.
>
>Now, whether the effects of this pressure can ever be seen or
>proved given the small sample size of the true pressure
>situations is another issue. I'm not sure that it can.  But the
>statement "differnt humans react ifferently to pressure.  some react 
>well, some react poorly" is certainly true.
>

Well, okay, let me say that what my post attempted to show was that "reacting 
well" or "poorly" is not something you can pin on a person, since that person
reacts well at some times, poorly at others.  It's incorrect to say that the
fact that they react well or poorly "proves" that they are clutch hitters.  If
I wasn't clear in that, keep in mind that I was posting at four in the morning.
:)

-- 
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
Xref: sparky rec.sport.baseball:28779 soc.culture.japan:8491