HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jhg8680@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Jon  Hamkins)
Subject: Re: AL Rookie of Year Award?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 04:41:18 GMT

genetic+@pitt.edu (Dr. Dave) writes:

>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.
>[...]
>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?

I agree with you, as far as you go.  But the run-and-hit is available
as well, and may mitigate the negative effects you cite.

Consider: 

o In a hit-and-run, the runner is stealing and the batter is swinging
  no matter what, potentially even on pitch-outs, so as to protect the
  runner.  Presumably this runner needs protection, either because he's
  slow, or doesn't get a good jump, or whatever.

o In a run-and-hit, the runner is stealing and the batter swings only
  if he likes the pitch.  The runner is expected to get a good jump and
  have a decent shot at stealing without any protection from the
  batter, while the batter maintains selectivity.

So, how do you choose between the strategies?  Obviously, with a slow
runner and a contact hitter, use the hit-and-run.  And with a fast
runner and a not-so-reliable hitter, use the run-and-hit.  The in
between cases are harder.

Now, the good contact hitters are usually coming up after the speedy
guys with the high OBP's at the top of the the order.  Here, you can
use run-and-hit, and the reduction you refer to of the OBP of these
hitters will not occur, since they may be as selective as they like.

Once you get to the middle to bottom part of the line-up, anyone on
base is probably going to be some porker from the 4th to 5th slot.
Now, being at the bottom of the order, the OBP's of the guys coming up
aren't great, either, so it's one of those in between cases.  If what
you say is true about selectivity, perhaps hit-and-run is best for both
batter and runner; it increases the batter's chance of getting on,
while also providing more protection for the runner.

     ----Jon Hamkins  (hamkins@uiuc.edu)
         University of Illinios
         Urbana, IL
From: chill@cbnews.cb.att.com (daniel.a.miller)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Expansion Draft
Date: 6 Oct 92 16:10:38 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbnews.1992Oct6.161038.19588
Organization: AT&T


	Does anyone know when the Expansion Draft will take place? And
is there a list of protected players that CANNOT be selected in this draft?

- Dan
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: dsimon@atlas.nafb.trw.com
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Lead off walks....
Date: 1 Oct 92 20:33:56 GMT

>>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

>I'm assuming that over eight years of data, the difference is statistically
>significant.

IS the difference statistically significant?  

Over 8 years of data,
there have been (8 years)*(162 games/year/team)*(26 teams) = 33696 leadoff
innings.  We are given an event x (e.g., x = leadoff single scoring).
Event x has a TRUE probability p of occurring each chance 
(e.g. p = about 0.43).  Using the DeMoivre-Laplace Theorem, 
if we have n chances (in our case n=33696) we can compute the
probability of observing x between a fraction "a" and a fraction "b" 
of all possible occurrences.

Assume that p = 0.43.  Given 33696 possible occurrences, what is 
the probability of observing leadoff singles scoring between fraction 
"a" and fraction "b" of the time?

a      b       probability
---------------------------
0       0.428    22.9 %
0.428   0.429    12.6
0.429   0.430    14.5
0.430   0.431    14.5
0.431   0.432    12.6
0.432   1        22.9

So if the TRUE probability of a leadoff single scoring is 0.43, then
there is a 22.9 % chance that we will observe the leadoff single
scoring a fraction of 0.428 or less.

Similarly, if the true probability of a leadoff walk scoring is 0.43, then
there is a 22.9 % chance that we will observe the leadoff single
scoring a fraction of 0.432 or more.

There is therefore a (0.229)*(0.229) = 5.2 % chance that both leadoff
singles score 0.428 or less and leadoff walks score 0.432 or more.
Of course, there is also a 5.2 % chance that both leadoff
singles score 0.432 or more and leadoff walks score 0.428 or less.

RESULT:
If the probability of leadoff walks scoring is the same as the
probability of leadoff singles scoring, there is approximately 
(5.2 + 5.2) = 10.4 % chance that we would observe a 0.004 (or more) 
discrepancy over an 8-year observation period.  

Draw your own conclusions.
----------
Dan Simon

Reference: A. Papoulis, "Probability, Random Variables, and
Stochastic Processes," Mc-Graw Hill Publishing, 1984, pages 42-49.
From: lbr@holos0.uucp (Len Reed)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Kill the Catcher
Date: 25 Sep 92 19:19:35 GMT
Organization: Holos Software, Inc.

In article <92268.021410RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu> RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu writes:
>oy vey.  someone now says that my ty cobb story doesn't refute that people
>nowadays don't try to bowl over anybody but the catcher.
>
>i couldn't agree more.  it was a neat little story that kind of had something
>to do with the conversation.  i wasn't trying to refute anything.  i never
>said i was trying to refute anything.

Well, you followed up a few lines that said no one tried this on anyone
but the catcher with your comments on Cobb.  I interpreted this to be a
counterexample, while you meant it to be simply an interesting
aside inserted into the discussion.  Oh, well, sorry for the misinterpretation.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: mjones@fenway.aix.kingston.ibm.com (Mike Jones)
Subject: Re: Another surprise from the media
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 92 16:34:26 GMT
Organization: IBM Corp. Kingston NY

In article <GRABINER.92Oct4173404@birkhoff.harvard.edu> grabiner@math.harvard.edu (David Grabiner) writes:
>
>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."

Oh, David! You undersell the man. I'm sure that at this very moment there's
a kangaroo court going on in the Globe newsroom with Peter Gammons as judge
and Nick Cafardo as prosecutor. The charge: heresy. Exhibit A: the quote
above. Exhibit B, another quote from the article, follows:

  Baseball is not a team game, at least not very often. Baseball is the sum
total of a number of individual acts. People who can "sacrifice" themselves
by moving a runner over, or who can take tantalizing strikes in order to
allow someone to steal a base are praised as "team" players, and that's all
well and good. But miserable, selfish people who get on base 300 times,
drive in 110 runs or frequently hit late-inning three-run homers are even
better team players because they win games directly, and the subtleties be
damned.
  Any team with enough talented players needn't worry too often about moving
runners over or taking strikes to abet base stealers. These are the things
you do when you lack confidence that someone will hit the ball where the
defense ain't.

Oh, and just to keep the record straight (since I have the paper in front of
me), the exact quote David brought up was

The two most relevant stats among the many baseball uses to evaluate
offensive players are on-base percentage and slugging percentage.

The Millenium cometh.

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

Sincerity and dedication are not necessarily virtues.  Hermann Goering had
both.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: kubey@sgi.com (Ken Kubey)
Subject: Re: Bonds "choke"?
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 05:53:59 GMT

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)  

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

Did Reggie's team lose any of those Series?

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name:       Ken Kubey  or  QB   |  Reading, editing or printing of this text
Address:    kubey@sgi.com       |  without the express written consent of
Disclaimer: the usual           |  Major League Baseball is prohibited.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: jhg8680@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Jon  Hamkins)
Subject: Re: Kill the Catcher
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 14:20:27 GMT

lbr@holos0.uucp (Len Reed) writes:

>In article <Bv6xqo.5zF@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jhg8680@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Jon  Hamkins) writes:
>>lbr@holos0.uucp (Len Reed) writes:
>>>Oh, come on, going to the dictionary to support an argument about
>>>fine details of baseball terminology?  
>>
>>Well, I don't see it defined in the the official rules.  You seem to be
>>talking about obstruction, but you keep referring to it as blocking.  I
>>don't see how your feeling on the issue is somehow better than a
>>definition from the dictionary.

>[dictionary isn't suited for fineline discussions in any discipline]

>[definition cited applies to football, not baseball or basketball]

>Anyway, it just doesn't matter.  This is a semantic side-issue.  Even
>if I were to concede that blocking is what you say it is, it doesn't
>affect the main discussion.  Consequently, I'll not argue this line
>any more.

>You still have not answered my basic argument, which is that it should
>be illegal to crash the catcher.  You seem to be trying to use
>semantic arguments to show that this play must remain legal, because
>there's no alternative that can work.  

I did not say I disagreed with your rule change, and I was not trying
to infer such by arguing semantics.  What I was implying is that you're
likely to confuse the issue when you use words that have one meaning to
you, and another meaning to the others.

     ----Jon Hamkins  (hamkins@uiuc.edu)
         University of Illinios
         Urbana, IL
From: dxf12@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas Fowler)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Going for records (was Re: Randy Johnson
Date: 28 Sep 92 18:53:32 GMT
Reply-To: dxf12@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas Fowler)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc12.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, mmartin@wpi.WPI.EDU (Matthew Wayne Martin) says:

>	While watching the Red Sox game yesterday, Sean McDonough mentioned,
>as they were going off the air, that Randy Johnson had 18 K's through 7
>innings.  How many did he end up with?  Did he break Clemens' record?

     He wound up with 18 through 8 innings, then ASKED to be removed.  Who
says modern day ballplayers only pay attention to their stats.  He'd
thrown 160 pitches, but one would think that, if he really cared about the
record, he'd have tried to make it through 3 more batters. (Then again,
I wasn't aware that he had 18 through 7; maybe he tried to give it his
all in the 8th to get 2 more batters, than figured it was fruitless, as
he wasn't getting anything on his pitches.  Or, maybe manager Plummer
suggested he do this because of an already high pitch count, then see
if he could go another inning.)  While he looks like he's coming into
his own, with 45 Ks in his last 3 starts, setting or tying that record
would have added a god deal to his credentials come negotiation time.
(Not to mention if he owns a bunch of his rookie cards; I have 1, which
I bought in 1990 recalling that Nolan Ryan started out wild, just like him.)

     This brings another interesting point to my mind.  While it's true
the object is to win, do you think managers should try to let records be
broken?  I mean, suppose Johnson doesn't ask to be taken out.  True, he's
thrown 160 pitches, but the club's going noplace, it would give them a
big boost in the box office if they could boast of the single-game K king,
and there's no reason why Johnson can't just make this his last game of the
season.  He'll have all winter to rest, then - heck, Ryan once threw 250
pitches in a minor league game.  Teams in postseason do it all the time;
it's become alomst a cliche that the pitchers for game 7 of the World
Series are, for instance, Morris and staff versus Glavine and staff.  You
have all winter to rest.  Why shouldn't a poor team, with a dwindling
attendance, try to let a player like Johnson set a record late in the season
in the hopes that it will provide some benefit next year.
-- 
Doug Fowler: dxf12@po.CWRU.edu      :    "Every baby born into the world is
Real home: Canton, Ohio             :  finer than the last."--Charles Dickens
 Trying to follow in the path of our :     "A baby is an inestimable
Lord;anything close will be a success:  blessing and bother."--Mark Twain
From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Bonds "choke"?
Date: 2 Oct 92 13:11:26 GMT
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com

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:
>> >
> >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."
> >
> 
> 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.

--
Jim Mann            
Stratus Computer   jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Morris: more fuel for this debate
From: Jeff Pierce <JPIERCE@MIAMIU.BITNET>
Date: Sunday, 4 Oct 1992 17:57:33 EDT
Distribution: na
Organization: Miami University - Academic Computer Service

Maybe the Blue Jays players score so well for Morris because they know
that a four run lead, on average, isn't enough to guarantee a win for
the team.  I believe they spotted him a 6 to 1 lead a few days ago, and
Morris gave up 5 more runs before he left the game with an 8-6 lead.  I
like Morris, but I wonder what his record would be if he were pitching
for the Angels (Nelson, would you want him this year)?
 
                                                 Jeff
From: demers@cs.ucsd.edu (David DeMers)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Bell, George.
Date: 27 Sep 92 00:18:25 GMT
Organization: =CSE Dept., U.C. San Diego

In article <Bv5KMz.E4B@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> peppler@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Randy Peppler) writes:
[... somebody said ...]
>>George Bell has spent most of the season batting behind Frank Thomas. 
...
>>Bell's 100RBI are more a measure of Thomas 'On-Base' 
>>ability than Bell's 'RBI' ability.

...
>	if you instead had entrenched Karkovice, Sax, Lance Johnson,
>	Abner/Huff/Pasqua, or whoever the shortstop was, in the 4 spot
>	this year instead of George, I'd being willing to be my house
>	that none of those persons would have had 108 RBIs right now.

Probably right.  Bell does have a decent SLG, and that drives
in runners, if there are any on base...

>	Same for Sammy.  So, Bell isn't quite the stiff everyone is making
>	him out to be?  

He's not a total stiff, but he is vastly overrated.  He's basically
Pete Incaviglia with the bat, but has often been on teams with
lots of players with high OBPs ahead of him.  There are certainly
worse players who have major league jobs as starting OFs or DHs
(Brooks?  Jerald Clark? Luis Gonzalez?).

... [I'd still like to see his numbers for batting with runners on]
>	base and runners in scoring position as opposed to that with
>	nobody on...  If they're not significantly different, I'll
>	shut up...

Sorry, don't have them, but if anyone does, speak up.

-- 
Dave DeMers			 ddemers@UCSD   demers@cs.ucsd.edu
Computer Science & Engineering	C-014		demers%cs@ucsd.bitnet
UC San Diego					...!ucsd!cs!demers
La Jolla, CA 92093-0114	(619) 534-0688, or -8187, FAX: (619) 534-7029
Newsgroups: rn,rec.sport.baseball
From: s_hallee@oz.plymouth.edu (garth)
Subject: allan anderson
Reply-To: s_hallee@oz.plymouth.edu (garth)
Organization: Plymouth State College - Plymouth, N.H.
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 22:23:16 GMT
From: gajarsky@pilot.njin.net (Bob Gajarsky)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: the wet dreams of a yankee fan...
Date: 6 Oct 92 13:04:02 GMT
Organization: Somewhere in Hoboken

the yankees would have won an additional game this year if bam bam
 was at third.  

and count sterling hitchcock in the starting rotation instead of taylor.
 also, the yanks are NOT counting sanderson in.

so - they've got melido, hitchock, wickman, militello, and someone else.

it will be cone.

the yanks may not keep bam bam on their protected list.  off to colorado?
 - bob gaj
From: TW.N82@isumvs.iastate.edu (BOB.PEDERSEN)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: FAQ?
Date: 2 Oct 92 17:52:33 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.1992Oct2.175233.17525
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA

In my teeth-chattering excitement over the A.L.East pennant race (I
favor the Blue Jays, but the Brewers have been so AWESOME, it's
getting hard to root against them!!!), I seem to have somehow missed
the most recent version of the FAQ, apparently posted this week.  I
looked for it at the archive site, but couldn't find it.  Could some
kind soul send it to me at tw.n82@iastate.edu?  Bless you.

By the way, thanks to all who posted or mailed answers to my "Odd
Questions" post.  I owe a couple of you individual responses, and
will get to that soon.


--
Bob Pedersen
Recent graduate and flunkie, Iowa State University
Future Library Science student, University of Iowa
From: jrmst8+@pitt.edu (Joseph R Mcdonald)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: attendance 9/22 (was: Re: If you thought last year was bad)
Date: 3 Oct 92 15:25:53 GMT
Article-I.D.: blue.6758
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <Bv19vx.pK@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> poutsmaj@mace.cc.purdue.edu (unknown) writes:
>>
>>(home) Team         Place in standings        Attendance 9/22
>>-----------         ------------------        ---------------
>>Pirates               First in NL East            8,222
>>Mets                  Fifth in NL East            8,509 
>>Dodgers               Sixth in NL West           21,122
>>
>(rest deleted)
>
>
>If I were the owner of the Pirates, I would pack up my team and head to some-
>place where a few more people were interested in my team.  It's obvious
>that most of Pittsburgh aren't....
>
>(No offense to those loyal Pirate fans in Pitt who have to live in a town
>that won't support the home team even when they win)
>
>paul


The Pirates have drawn 1.8 million this year.  Their market is about 2.2
million people.  That's about an 81% attendance/population ratio.  For L.A.
to draw a 81% ratio, they would have to draw over 5 million!  The teams in
the same market size as Pittsburgh (Milwaukee, Cincinnati, Seattle, Cleveland,
Kansas City) have all drawn about the same amount (give or take a couple
thousand per game).  What you fail to understand, is that with the possible
exception to Cleveland's mistake-on-the-lake, Three Rivers is the worst
baseball stadium in the country!  Half of the 58,000 seats have an obstruct-
ed view of the field, and yet the Bucs draw 23K per game.  Add to that the
5-month old paper strike here, which causes the Bucs to lose 3000-4000 walk-
up fans per game, and the Pirates aren't doing that bad.  They've outdrawn
bigger cities like NY (both teams), Detroit, Houston, San Diego, and Montreal.
The last two of them had decent teams too.   Lay off Pittsburgh (at least
until you've paid $30 for a playoff ticket and THEN can't see half of the
outfield).

Dean

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dean J. Falcione                                   Dean's UNIX Exorcism Service 
(using jrmst8 by permission                             "We kill daemons" 
 of the owner, Joe McDonald)   
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: barrett@terminus.gatech.edu (James Barrett)
Subject: Re: BRAVES in trouble?
Organization: Georgia Tech College of Computing
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1992 22:34:30 GMT

dcarter@supra.East.Sun.COM (Dave Carter-Sun-Atlanta GA-Atlanta District MCC) writes:

>And yes, Pendleton should be MVP, and so should Cox be manager of the
>year. He proved last year wasn't a fluke.

While I agree with Pendleton b/c I haven't really seen anyone else 
play much, Cox should be *worst* manager of the year.  The players
won it this year, after he taught them how last year.  Late yanks
of pitchers in trouble is my #1 reason, miss-handling of the bullpen
by committee is #2.  
------------------OS/2 v2.0 -- Why settle for anything less?--------------------
James C. Barrett (barrett@cc.gatech.edu)|"If your so damned smart, why are
Georgia Tech College of Computing       |  you doing what you're doing, and I'm
                                        |  president of the U.S.?" - G.Bush
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball