HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cs30@prism.gatech.EDU (SMITH,CHRISTOPHER G)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.tennis
Subject: News, Dec 12 (SPOILERS)
Date: 12 Dec 92 16:57:46 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology


Press `n' to skip results (warning: the spoiler is for a match
being broadcast tape delay on ESPN):


Grand Slam Cup
--------------
Chang d. Ivanisevic    6-7 6-2 6-4 3-6 6-3

An error-prone match w/ lots of double faults from Ivanisevic.  Chang
closed it out on the 6th match point.


Advanta Seniors Tour: Coral Springs, Fla.
-----------------------------------------
Bjorn Borg(1) d. Eddie Dibbs        6-1 6-1
Harold Solomon(2) d. Peter Fleming  4-6 6-1 7-5
Chris Lewis d. Sandy Mayer(3)       6-4 7-5
John Lloyd(4) d. Roscoe Tanner      6-3 6-2


..Chris

-- 
Christopher Smith, Georgia Tech (Atlanta)          csmith@cc.gatech.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.tennis
From: cs3ea3ai@maccs.mcmaster.ca (ZOO Network)
Subject: Re: Who plays WPS 4.5si 95"
Organization: Department of Computer Science, McMaster University
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 22:11:20 GMT

>Both Courier and Sampras use Pro-Staff. I don't know their si numbers
>though. I've a Staff Tour and thinking about upgrading to Pro-Staff too. I
>just found my Staff Tour a little bit too head heavy. Can any of your netter
>suggest a Pro-Staff that's just SLIGHTLY lighter weight than Staff Tour ? I
>think it would be either 4.5, 5.5 or 6.0. Not sure which one.
>
>BTW, Stefan uses a Pro-Staff Classic.

As I recall, Courier and Sampras use the old, vintage Pro Staff, 
which Edberg used to use.  I find it has more of a feel to the ball.


|\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/|
|  "Everything you know is wrong" - Bono                               | 
|\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/|
|  Mark Cheers - cs3ea3ai@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca                       | 
|       Too cheap for a real login                                     | 
|/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\|
From: arijeet@lorelei.ece.drexel.edu (Arijit Das)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.tennis
Subject: Re: Tennis Players' Education (Was: ESPN tennis)
Date: 17 Dec 92 23:23:41 GMT
Organization: Drexel University, Philadelphia PA


In article <18432@borg.cs.unc.edu> ponamgi@cs.unc.edu (Krish Ponamgi) writes:
>
>Sampras did **NOT** play college tennis at Stanfurd.  He didn't complete
>high school last time I heard.  There was an interesting article in the

That's what I thought, the guys from Stanford I think were MacEnroe 
and Connors (I doubt if either of them completed the program).
---
arijit
From: Rodger_Madison@rand.ORG (Rodger Madison)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.tennis
Subject: Re: When the ball hit the body
Date: 15 Dec 92 18:53:56 GMT
Organization: The RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California

I'll have to bring a copy of the rules so I can quote it but if the ball touches
the player or anything he wears or carries other than the racquet the other
player (or team) wins the point.  

	Rodger
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: nlu@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu)
Subject: Re: Blue Jays-Gillick
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 08:48:18 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.070758.4386@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:

>Of course we can't *prove* it.  Obviously not to your satisfaction.  On
>the other hand, we also can't *prove* that when you drop something, it
>will fall, that the Earth is not flat, or that Cito Gaston even exists.

The last one will be perhaps the hardest to prove, since you can't use
"cogito ergo sum" since Gaston doesn't think. :-)  (Well, "I think therefore
I am" is out of scope anyway, but...)

===============================================================================
GO CALIFORNIA ANGELS!
===============================================================================
Nelson Lu (claudius@leland.stanford.edu)
From: demers@cs.ucsd.edu (David DeMers)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: All-Time Padre team
Date: 13 Dec 92 19:56:30 GMT
Organization: CSE Dept., UC San Diego


In article <Bz7M1E.K5n@unix.amherst.edu>, ddsokol@unix.amherst.edu (D. DANIEL SOKOL) writes:
|> Add:
|> 1B Steve Garvey- a fan favorite even though he was in his declining years

well, I'd still take McGriff & Colbert, as well as Kruk and McCovey
over Steve "He's not my padre" Garvey...

|> RP Mitch Davis- sure he sucks now, but he did win the Cy Young in 1989

er, Mark, and he sure did have a super year.  I think Goose and Rollie
had better careers here though.

|> SP Ed Whitson- he just retired due to arm trouble.  Can't we do him this little
|> 		favor?


Yeah, he was one of the best pitchers in the league for a 3 year span.


|> Maybe in a few years SP Andy Benes who has great potential to become a 
|> super star.

I keep expecting him to contend for the Cy Young, but he just can't
seem to put it together.  Some days he looks unhittable.  It's rumored
that he loses a lot off the fastball when pitching from the stretch,
so tends to get hit in bunches.

Dave
-- 
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: rec.sport.baseball
From: doctor8@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu (Jason Abner Miller)
Subject: Re: All-Time Oakland A's Team
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University - HCF
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:32:00 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.192725.18039@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes...
>In article <838@blue.cis.pitt.edu> genetic+@pitt.edu (Dr. Dave) writes:
>>The Oakland All-Time team would be something like
> 
>>	SP	Vida Blue
>>	SP	Catfish Hunter
>>	SP	Dave Stewart
>>	SP	Ken Holtzman
> 
>Sheesh, Billy Martin really did decimate his pitching staff, didn't he?
>The 1980-81 A's had really amazing starting pitching, and they all blew
>their arms out.

	The problem is, it *wasn't* that amazing; it was only because
Billy pitched them so bleeping often that they put up sort of OK win
totals.  Rick Langford?  Wasn't he the guy who, in 240 innings, gave up
about 280 hits and didn't strike out 100 men?  That's bad in any language,
no matter how many wins he got, because he also lost about 15 in 1980.
	Steve McCatty might have been good (the first pitcher ever to
throw a no-hitter for me in a Strat-O-Matic game!), but he was always hurt.
	Brian Kingman and Matt Keough were also just average, and turned
bad after Martin finished with them.  The only one I'm not sure about
is Mike Norris ... he might have been good at one time.  Didn't he have
a drug problem or something

>-- 
>ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
>standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
>the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jason A. Miller				|		Kill Tanana!
============================================================================
"doctor8@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu"		|		"some doctor guy"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
	Honestly.  Frank Tanana.  Yuck.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: gamble@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Bruce Gamble)
Subject: Re: Atlanta pitching
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:17:57 GMT

In article <texdude.724523154@cs1.bradley.edu> texdude@cs1.bradley.edu (Philip Allen) writes:
>
>If Maddux starts, Glavine could see this as a message that he isn't the
>  Braves' number one pitcher anymore.
>If Glavine starts, Maddux could see this as a message that, although he
>  won the Cy Young, he isn't going to be their number one pitcher.
>
>Either way, one of the two is going to get "demoted". 
>

Am I the only person that thinks the idea of ranking your starting pitchers
from 1 to 5 is silly?  It means that somehow Atlanta has to decide whether
Maddux or Glavine is their "number one" pitcher.  Who cares?
Other than the symbolic opening day start, does it matter?

I cringe when I hear comments such as: "We will be using Hibbard as
our 4th or 5th starter, but no higher."  The implication is that if you
made Hibbard the "2nd or 3rd starter" you would be thrusting him
into a role that he couldn't handle.  The problem of course, is that
his job wouldn't change (go out every 5th day and pitch as well as you can).

Bruce Gamble
gamble@nwu.edu 
Organization: Doctoral student, Biology, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 12:54:02 -0500 
From: "J. Anthony Graves" <jg4e+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: NL East analysis.k
	<1992Dec17.064945.24146@bradley.bradley.edu>

I'm not going to pick this analysis apart piece by piece, but it is
obviously flawed.  First, it does not take into consideration defense in
any way.  Second, it does not factor in coaching and managing.  Lastly,
and possibly the most important reason that this is severely flawed is
people have changed teams, and no one knows what effect that will have
on not only that player but the new team as well!
From: hongamen@titan.ksc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: All-Time Expo team
Date: 16 Dec 92 14:29:34 EST
Organization: NASA, Kennedy Space Center

     Here's my All-Time Expo team.  Send in your votes/opinions.

     C : Gary Carter
     1B: Al Oliver
     2B: Dave Cash
     SS: Hubie Brooks
     3B: Larry Parrish/Tim Wallach
     OF: Tim Raines
     OF: Andre Dawson
     OF: Ellis Valentine/Rusty Staub

     SP: Steve Rogers 
     SP: Dennis Martinez
     SP: Ross Grimsley
     SP: Charlie Lea

     RP: Jeff Reardon
     RP: Mike Marshall

Batting Order
     1. Tim Raines
     2. Andre Dawson     : When he had speed
     3. Al Oliver
     4. Gary Carter 
     5. Hubie Brooks
     6. Larry Parrish/Tim Wallach
     7. Ellis Valentine/Rusty Staub    ; Platoon
     8. Dave Cash

     I may get plenty of remarks concerning the 3rd and 4th Starters, but I'd
like to hear differing opinions.  Post your All-Time Expo team!!!!

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: sgs@stein.u.washington.edu (Steven Smith)
Subject: Birthdays
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 18:39:29 GMT

Baseball Birthdays

December 14
Bill Buckner, 1949
Toothpick Sam Jones, 1925
Bobby Adams, 1921
Les Rowland Bell, 1901
George "Lefty" Tyler, 1889
Jeff Mark Robinson, 1961
Craig Biggio, 1965
Paul Erickson, 1915
Jim Walkup, 1909
Ken Hill, 1965

--Steve
-- 
 sgs@u.washington.edu             * "The tall people want what the 
 Steve Smith                      *  short people got."
 University of Washington HR-20   *    --D. Wiggin-"Philosophy of the World"	 
 Seattle, WA 98195                * 
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: punjabi@leland.Stanford.EDU (sanjeev punjabi)
Subject: Info. requested on Charlie Phillips of Palm Springs
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 05:56:49 GMT


Can someone please provide me some information/stats on Charlie Phillips'
career in the California Angels organization?  A left-handed power-hitter,
he played first base for Palm Springs last season.  Thanks!
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Blue Jays-Gillick
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 23:30:17 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.002532.5364@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca> maynard@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Roger Maynard) writes:
>In <1992Dec17.174319.13706@panix.com> spira@panix.com (Greg "Sarcasm Is A Way Of Life" Spira) writes:
>>In <1992Dec17.030347.22009@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca> (Roger Maynard) writes:

Since I thought of the same batboy example just before I read this post,
(you did it again, Greg), I'm morally obligated to respond to this:

>>>Nope.  They won with Griffin.  If you think they could have won without him
>>>then the onus is on you to prove it.  And you can't.  I can prove that they
>>>won with him.And if you can't prove that they could have won without Griffin
>>>then you can't prove that Griffin was any less valuable to the team than
>>>Alomar.

>>And, of course, by that logic, we can't prove that the Jays would have
>>won without the bat boy, the equipment manager, the trainer, the clubhouse
>>attendant, the ticket sellers, the guys who deliver food to the lockerroom,
>>the Toronto press, the fans, etc.

>>Wait a minute.  You know, I got to watch a lot of Toronto games on tv this
>>year.  And there is in fact no way to prove that they would have won the
>>World Series if I had not watched those games, because in fact they did
>>win the World Series with me watching.  Therefore, there is no way of
>>proving that I was any less valuable to the team than Roberto Alomar{or
>>Pat Gillick or Dave Winfield or Joe Carter!

>Wait a minute.  You know, Pat Gillick got to sign a lot of Toronto players
>to contracts.  Winfield and Carter hit balls, fielded balls, snapped towels
>in the showers...what did you do to contribute to their championship?  You
>watched TV.  No doubt you bought some product they were hawking (although
>I don't recall ever seeing a Mattel Toy Co. add during a jay's game) so I 
>guess in some sense you helped pay that 45M+ payroll.  You should be pleased.
>Please watch again this year.

In some sense?  How do you know that his watching TV didn't *cause* them
to win?  It has as much relevance to baseball as snapping towels in a shower.  
And it has more relation to winning than eating outs like Fettuccini did.

Can you prove he wasn't the *primary* cause of them winning the World
Series?  (He certainly contributed as much as Alfredo Griffin did.) No, 
you can't.  The onus is on you to prove it, and you can't, so you have no
justification for claiming that he did do any less than Winfield or Carter.

Even you would agree that this was silly, and yet it's the EXACT SAME
argument you're using.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Is it too early to start making predictions for 1993?
niepornt@phoenix.    | Probably, but that never stopped me before.
   princeton.edu     | ALE: Baltimore ALW: Chicago NLE: Montreal NLW: Atlanta
Baltimore Orioles 93 | AL MVP: Cal Ripken  AL Cy Young: Mike Mussina
From: rickert@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (John H. Rickert)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: A pivotal point in baseball history?
Date: 11 Dec 1992 22:21:04 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department at Rose-Hulman
Reply-To: rickert@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (John H. Rickert)
NNTP-Posting-Host: g215a-1.nextwork.rose-hulman.edu

In article <cubsfan.723966922@camelot> cubsfan@camelot.bradley.edu (Michael  
Silverman) writes:
> Right now is the most pivotal time in baseball history:
I dunno, there's some pretty stiff competition.
We just know how the other times turned out.
 
> 1. More player movements in a shorter period of time, featuring
> more big names than any other time.
What about the 'war years' and the mid teens and the turn of the century
and the early 1890's ? The mid 1880's had quite a bit of movement...

> 2. The new TV contract...could mean fundamental changes in the
> structure of the leagues, interleague play, etc.
And fundamental changes also came about through the intro of TV,
the intro of radio, newspaper coverage

> 3. A finanacial crisis...huge gaps between rich and poor teams.
Huge gaps have existed throughout most of baseball history 

> 4. The changes in the commisionership.
Well... Landis died in 1944, The commissioner replaced the 
committee in 1920, the AL/NL basic agreement in the 00's, 
the dismantling of the AA, the creation of the NL...

> 5.  Moves in COngress to repeal the (mythical?) anti-trust
> exemption.
Seems like the rumblings were louder in the early 50's (though I could be  
wrong)- I'm sure they were stronger in the teens, since some Fed.Leg. owners  
did take this to court. Before that there was no anti-trust understanding.

> 6. Teams threatening to move, chnges in ownership, turmoil
> within the owners ranks.
ditto the 50's, 00's, and all the way through the 19th century
 
> 7. A countdown to a major labor confrontation that may
> lead to the wiping out of the 1993 season and major changes in the player
> owner relationship, including a salary cap and revenue sharing.
There have been the strikes of '80,70 a bit of a revolt when the
Mexican league started throwing around money in the late 40s,
salary slashing in the 30s, teens 1890s a serious players revolt in 1890
(formation of the Players League) 

> The future of the game for the next 25 years will be determined
> the next couple months.
Maybe so, but I wouldn't call this the *most* pivotal time. 

   I'd say the post WWII years had more turmoil and set the stage for 
the next 40-50 years (good evidence for your 25 year figure  I suppose).
The post WWII years also saw Jackie Robinson's debut- probably more 
far-reaching a change than any of those we'll have now. And most of the  
current controversies had a counterpart happening then.
(Is that parsed correctly?)
I'd say the post Fed.Leg. era  was also a biggie, 
as was the turn of the century.

john rickert
rickert@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu
Go Brewers!!... No! Wait!! Stay with the team, what I meant was....
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: dave@snitor.sni.ca (Dave Till)
Subject: Re: What did Winfield say in Sat. Night News confernce?
Organization: Third Baseman Search Committee
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 22:11:04 GMT

In article <1gij5iINNeda@skeena.ucs.ubc.ca> stlouis@unixg.ubc.ca (Phill St. Louis) writes:
>Dave Winfield said that he has received offers from other teams, but was
>holding off signing until he could come to Toronto to talk to the Jays
>front office.  He has now done it and knows that he will not be playing in
>Toronto in 1993.
>
>He said that he had had no plans to be switching teams; he was expecting to
>be with Toronto.  He said there was almost no negotiating, he has no hard
>feelings and that it was a business move.  There was disappointment.
>
>He was sorry to be not returning.  He said all of these things.  What I did
>not hear him say on the TSN news, but was being reported was that he felt like
>he was used as a hired gun.

What happened, I think, is that the Jays were afraid of missing the boat.
It seemed likely that the negotiations with Winfield were about to drag on
a bit.  If all of the available alternatives were snapped up in the meantime,
the Jays would have been left over a barrel:  either sign Winfield at
his price, or have a big hole in your lineup.

I'm going to miss Winfield, but I think Molitor's got a lot left, and
he and Alomar could be a really effective 1-2 punch.

--Dave "a fan, by definition, is always an optimist, except in Boston" Till
  e-mail address:  dave@silver.sni.ca or dave@snitor.uucp
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: mlstocku@zeno07.math.UWaterloo.ca ()
Subject: Re: Atlanta pitching
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 11:02:42 GMT

   Someone recently wrote ...
>I cringe when I hear comments such as: "We will be using Hibbard as
>our 4th or 5th starter, but no higher."  The implication is that if you
>made Hibbard the "2nd or 3rd starter" you would be thrusting him
>into a role that he couldn't handle.  The problem of course, is that
>his job wouldn't change (go out every 5th day and pitch as well as you can).

In general, I agree with your sentiment, but there is one way in which
it does matter.  The number 5 pitcher often pitches very erratically,
schedule-wise.  He often misses starts due to off days, for instance.
Also, the higher the starter is, the more starts he tends to get.

  ... 
  Don't forget that when the division races heat up. Pitching schedules are
changed to match your best three pitchers for a 2/3/4 games series. I believe
this is how such terminology started, you try and get your front men as many
games as possible.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: savoy@hg.uleth.ca (Jim Savoy)
Subject: Re: Dodgers need more than Eric Davis
Reply-To: savoy@hg.uleth.ca
Organization: University of Lethbridge
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1992 23:23:05 GMT


> genzuk@mizar.usc.edu (Michael Genzuk) writes:

>Eric claims that he is going to change his style of play now.  He will not
>be so reckless and think more about playing in more games.  My concern is
>will this also diminish his effectiveness as a player?  If he holds back
>to avoid injury he may create more problems than he avoids.  

I doubt it. Most of the injuries he himself is responsible for come from
diving for balls. I believe it was Sherri who pointed out last year that
either Davis or Dykstra would be far more effective ballplayers if they'd
stop crashing into walls! Sure, it looks good, but preventing a double and
then missing 4 months because of it provides the team with a much greater
net loss (than if they had just played the hop of the wall). Some players
seem to be able to survive dives (Van Slyke, for instance) but Eric is as
frail a player as there is in baseball. Dykstra is solid but he's just
plain nuts!

 _____________________________________________________________________________
     Jim Savoy          University Of Lethbridge         savoy@hg.uleth.ca

  She's in love with a boy from the rodeo -
  Who pulls the rope on the chute where they let those suckers go.
From: genetic+@pitt.edu (Dr. Dave)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: All-Time Twins Team
Date: 11 Dec 92 17:40:27 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: Department of Industrial Engineering

Thus spake roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig):
>In article <471@blue.cis.pitt.edu> genetic+@pitt.edu (Dr. Dave) writes:

>>>SP: Kevin Tapani

>>Say what?

>>Camilio Pasqual.  Mudcat Grant.

>Really, Dave.  Imagine a typo that big, typing "Mudcat Grant" when
>you really meant "Jim Perry."

Hey, it was *sarcasm*.  I'd rather have Grant than Tapani, but Pasqual was
the one I meant.  

I'd take Jim Perry, too, for that matter.

(At least nobody has nominated Dan Gladden yet...)

-- 
       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: chee1l5@Jane.UH.EDU
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: What's with McGwire ?
Date: 14 Dec 1992 19:51:54 GMT
Organization: University of Houston
Reply-To: chee1l5@Jane.UH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: jane.uh.edu


Just wondering what's going on with Mark McGwire. Has he been made any
offers? What teams are rumored to be interested? I wish the Braves would
sign him, but they would essentially be admitting that they made a
mistake in protecting worthless Brian Hunter (over Neid, $&*$$%!!).

Sam
From: dzappala@caldera.usc.edu (Daniel Zappala)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Boggs to Dodgers?
Date: 15 Dec 1992 19:05:56 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Distribution: world
Reply-To: dzappala@caldera.usc.edu (Daniel Zappala)
NNTP-Posting-Host: caldera.usc.edu


|> 
|> The rumor starter strikes again!  I wonder if Peter is going to start
|> with his obnoxious trade of the week again!
|> 
|> Where there is interest in tinsletown for the services of Wade Boggs,
|> every report I've read and heard has him going to Yankees.  Allegedly,
|> Boggs is close to a three year deal that should be signed this week.
|> -- 
|> scott barman			| <This space intentionally left blank>
|> scott@asd.com			|

I heard Boggs' agent on the radio last night saying that the Dodgers had
an edge over the Yankees.  Of course, you never know if he really means this
or if he is trying to get more money out of the Yankees.


Daniel 
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball