HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Expos Clinch! Wallach to Dodgers
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 09:25:05 GMT

In article <1992Dec25.165929.16338@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca> bspencer@cs.mcgill.ca (Brian SPENCER) writes:
>In article <Dec.25.11.18.10.1992.29937@pilot.njin.net> gajarsky@pilot.njin.net (Bob Gajarsky - Hobokenite) writes:

>>just a point...

>>i think wallach is as bad an offensive player as everyone else
>> here on the net, but...looking in my STATS books from
>> '92 and '91 seasons, wallach is 2nd best in the majors last
>> year (in limited time) and 4th in the n.l. in '91 (which
>> correspodns roughly to average) in range.  

>>so why does everyone refer to him as a poor fielder?  

I'm not going to attack his fielding, at least until I see DA.

>Wallach is still an excellent fielder. But he had the worst BA for
>regular players (3.1 AB per game). 

And one of the worst SLGs, and one of the worst OBPs.  Gee, that doesn't
leave a whole lot, does it?
>				His leadership will be missed. I

Oh, yes.  That's what Montreal needs.  A guy who can lead them into the
cellar.

>heard an interview with him on a Montreal radio station yesterday. He
>sounded disappointed. It would have been his last to chance to play in
>the WS.

But anyway, this brings up the question that I've been meaning to ask
since I heard about this trade.  Okay, more than one question.

1) What rational reason is there for choosing a 35 year-old Tim Wallach
over a 24-year old Dave Hansen, when they put up similar numbers last
year?  Okay, defense, but who gets a 35 year old guy for many million 
dollars to play defense at an offensive position?  Oh, and I know,
leadership and experience, because he's led the Expo's to the WS many 
times in his career, and the Dodgers are really short on experienced
veterans.

2) Did Mike Sharperson get hit by a truck?  Is he a free agent?  I
suppose he could be, only I didn't see his name anywhere on the fa
lists.  What happened to the idea of playing *good* players?

-- 
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
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: scott@asd.com (Scott Barman)
Subject: Re: idiots.
Keywords: Harazin/Cashen DIE DIE DIE
Organization: American Software Development Corp., West Babylon, NY
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 18:34:46 GMT

In article <1gt835INN3ta@terminator.rs.itd.umich.edu> sweda@css.itd.umich.edu (Sean Sweda) writes:
>In article <1992Dec14.195327.15056@asd.com> scott@asd.com (Scott Barman) writes:
>>Schofield was brought in to play shortstop.  Because Kevin Elster's
>>shoulder was not responding to his surgery, who was going to play short?
>>Howard Johnson was committed to center field and they did not feel
>>comfortable with Bill Pecota at short on an every day basis.  Besides,
>>Pecota got hurt himself.  The Mets needed a shortstop.  Schofield was
>>made available and the Mets made a trade.  They plugged a whole with
>>someone who was actually a shortstop.  So tell me, why is that dumb?
>>
>
>Sorry, Whitey raped us on this one.  No way do you trade 2 quality young
>pitchers for a shortstop who can't hit .250

There is a difference between being "dumb" by trading for a shortstop
(as the posting I originally responded to read) and overpaying for that
shortstop.  If the posting would have said that the Mets overpaid to
plug that hole, then I would have no problem with that.

>The fact is that in both instances (Schofield and O'Brien) the Mets
>(mis)management paniced and payed too much for a stopgap.  And don't tell
>me that two good young pitchers are the going price for shortstops of
>Schofield's calibre.  We got Fernandez (who only makes about a half-mil
>more a year) for a middle reliever and a non-prospect.

I don't remember who they traded for O'Brien, but I don't think it was
much.  I think it was Milwaukee who came to the Mets and offered the
trade.  I don't think the Mets were considering O'Brien at that time.
-- 
scott barman			| <This space intentionally left blank>
scott@asd.com			|
 (I can barely speak for myself, you expect me to speak for my employer??)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: marwood@csri.toronto.edu (Simon J. Marwood)
Subject: Re: Expos Clinch! Wallach to Dodgers
Organization: CSRI, University of Toronto
Date: 4 Jan 93 03:49:22 GMT

In article <1993Jan3.194201.28068@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca> maynard@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Roger Maynard) writes:
>In <1993Jan3.092505.4128@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>
>>But anyway, this brings up the question that I've been meaning to ask
>>since I heard about this trade.  Okay, more than one question.
>
>>1) What rational reason is there for choosing a 35 year-old Tim Wallach
>>over a 24-year old Dave Hansen, when they put up similar numbers last
>
>Perhaps because Expo FANS who have watched Wallach over the years enjoy
								   ^^^^^
>watching him play?  Is this a foreign concept?  Is this too radical?

Errr.... perhaps this should be "enjoyed" ?? It's been pretty painful the
last couple of years... the predictable groundouts, the half-hearted *slow*
swings at pitches down and away... the grimaces at Wallach coming up with
a runner on 1st....

Once upon a long time ago, Wallach was my favourite player (shhhh!!! This
was when I was *very* young!!). I don't think anyone enjoys watching him
play much anymore. With one exception: he still has a knack for making some
nice dive-pick-up-throw-'em-out plays at third once in a while, which are
still a treat. But his defence is not what it was, and he is one of the
worst offensive players in MLB.

Simon


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Simon Marwood		 | Do you have a list of ASIA tour dates? Please email
marwood@csri.toronto.edu | it to me!!!		-- Expos, 1993 --
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: spira@panix.com (Greg "Sarcasm Is A Way Of Life" Spira)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: EXPOS :TEAM TO BEAT IN THE EAST
Date: 24 Dec 92 16:43:24 GMT
Organization: Boo!

In <Dec.24.08.41.40.1992.16196@pilot.njin.net> gajarsky@pilot.njin.net (Bob Gajarsky - Hobokenite) writes:

>you know ho.jo is back at third, right?  not as bad as the new york media
> would lead you to believe, but he's no star player. 

By every measure I know of (RF, Zone, DA, Sportswriters), he always seemed
to be the worst defensive 3b in the league, and I can't imagine a year
away has improved his skills any.

 the overall
> infield defense is probably just barely above average (im' assuming 
> schofield is above average).

Maybe, but Tony Fernandez is now the shortstop, and in my opinion Tony's
defensive game has slipped considerably the last 3 or 4 years.

Greg 
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: dave@snitor.sni.ca (Dave Till)
Subject: Re: Blue Jays-Gillick
Organization: Siemens Nixdorf, Sietec Open Systems, Toronto, Canada
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 16:06:46 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.164157.16703@adobe.com> snichols@adobe.com (Sherri Nichols) writes:
>As far as the technical aspects of managing go, I'd guess that the two most
>important are (1) selecting the players who should get the playing time and
>(2) handling a pitching staff.  While Leyland is weak in other technical
>aspects of managing, he's reasonably strong in these two, while most of the
>complaints I recall here about Gaston have to do with his poor handling of
>the pitching staff.  That may help explain the different perceptions of
>these two.  
>
>How important is the handling of the pitching staff, in the overall scheme
>of things?  I don't know.  Anybody got any ideas on how to bound it?

Presumably, the importance of the handling of the pitching staff is
proportional to the importance of pitching.  Who was it that stated that
pitching is 44% of baseball (with offense 44%, and defense making up the rest)?

To measure the effect of a particular manager on a particular pitcher or staff,
I can only think of two things worth tracking:

1.  The team ERA before, during, and after the manager's tenure:  if a team's
ERA improves in mid-season after a managerial change, we can assume, I think,
that the manager had something to do with it (since the players are the same).

2.  The amount of time pitchers spend on the DL may be proportional to
the ability of a manager to handle a pitching staff.  Some managers
habitually overwork pitchers (Billy Martin is the classic example).

This, I fear, is not much to work with, but nobody else was responding
to this thread...

--Dave "baseball is 100% scoring more runs than the other team" Till
  e-mail address:  dave@silver.sni.ca or dave@snitor.uucp
  .help .stamp .out .sigs
From: drw3l@delmarva.evsc.Virginia.EDU (David Robert Walker)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: EXPOS :TEAM TO BEAT IN THE EAST
Date: 21 Dec 92 14:28:01 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <42757@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> demers@cs.ucsd.edu (David DeMers) writes:
>In article <1020@blue.cis.pitt.edu> genetic+@pitt.edu (Dr. Dave) writes:
>>Thus spake B7XS@MUSICT.MCGILL.CA (B7XS000):
>
>> I couldn't believe it when I heard that they'd
>>acquired Tim Spehr somehow (how did that happen?).  
>
>what's Spehr's story? I've never heard of him...

Catcher from KC; will be 27 this year; hit decently at Omaha the last
two years, but never hit anywhere before 1991.
>
>>That gives them a starting in-the-field lineup of 
>
>
>>	1B	sign a free agent
>
>Colbrunn should be adequate, though his plate discipline is
>poor.  He hits the ball pretty often pretty hard, which is
>nice to have around as a 1B hitting about 7th in the lineup.
> 
Why are so many people excited about Colbrunn this year? He is only
23, so I understand that, but he only has one really good hitting year
in the minors, last year at Indianapolis, and that was only 220 PA. He
may be good enough to play this year, but I wouldn't want to bet on it.

1994, I'll beleive.

Clay D.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: maynard@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Roger Maynard)
Subject: Re: Best playes of All Time
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Laurentian University, Sudbury, ON
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 15:13:40 GMT

In <1992Dec22.065151.11682@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:

>In article <BzLG6v.Gxy@unix.amherst.edu> ddsokol@unix.amherst.edu (D. DANIEL SOKOL) writes:

>>2B Carew- he won how many batting titles?  Much better than Morgan.  I think
>>	that he was the best hitter of his day although I can't say the same
>>	for his defense.  His bat and speed more than make up for this
>>	shortcoming though.
> 
>Of course, the object of the game of baseball is not to get hits in a
>high percentage of at bats.  It's to score a lot of runs.  And Morgan
>helped his team do that more than Carew did.  Superficially, they had
>similar stats, but Morgan compiled a large number of his in the Astrodome.

Nonsense.  The object is to collect rings.  And you do that, not by scoring
"a lot of runs", but by scoring more than the other guys.  Morgan helped 
the Reds do that.  He was by far the better player.
 
>long time.  He's a certain Hall of Famer.  But he has rarely, if ever,
>been the best pitcher in the league.  Certainly not for more than 1 year
>in a row.  

Where the hell is Steve Carlton?  Why isn't he on any of these lists?

a pleasure, as always,

rm

-- 
roger maynard
maynard@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: ddsokol@unix.amherst.edu (D. DANIEL SOKOL)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Best playes of All Time
Date: 21 Dec 92 05:20:54 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Amherst College
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]

The reasons why

on the bench
1B Greenberg, Foxx- definately better than McCovey.  Look at lifetime stats,
	year by year comparisons and the fact that these two guys were the
	impact players that McCovey never could be.

2B Carew- he won how many batting titles?  Much better than Morgan.  I think
	that he was the best hitter of his day although I can't say the same
	for his defense.  His bat and speed more than make up for this
	shortcoming though.
 
RP Gossage- I always liked the Goose.  His fastball was unhittable in his peak
	years, clocked at 100 mph.

SP Ryan, Feller- nobody was ever as dominating in their pitching as the two
of them (and Koufax but he's beyond argument)  These guys had amazing
speed.  If not for WWII Feller would have had some more amazing years.
Clearly the dominant pitchers of their eras though.

As for the catchers- Harnett had the power and average that most players in the
NL at that time didn't have.  I wouldn't say that Carter, Lombardi, Fisk were
on hids level.  The others sure were but none were significantly better or
worse.  This position was the hardest call for me.  As for Dickey, I think
that he was better than any other Yankee catcher (Yogi, Elston Howard, Thurmon 
Munson to name a few).  He had an amazing bat and knew how to control
the ball game.  A real staying power for the Yankees that was on the team from
the late 20's till the early 40's so that he could help with the transition
from Ruth to Gehrig to DiMaggio.  A true Hall of Famer.

I tried to include only 25 people onto my team to make it a bit more
realistic in terms of team size.  Sure the case could be made for Musial,
Hielman, Speaker, Seaver, Vaughn and Collins but I didn't have room for them.


-Dann
From: gajarsky@pilot.njin.net (Bob Gajarsky - Hobokenite)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Expos Clinch! Wallach to Dodgers
Date: 25 Dec 92 16:18:11 GMT
Organization: Somewhere in Hoboken

just a point...

i think wallach is as bad an offensive player as everyone else
 here on the net, but...looking in my STATS books from
 '92 and '91 seasons, wallach is 2nd best in the majors last
 year (in limited time) and 4th in the n.l. in '91 (which
 correspodns roughly to average) in range.  

so why does everyone refer to him as a poor fielder?  
 - bob gaj
From: gajarsky@pilot.njin.net (Bob Gajarsky - Hobokenite)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Offense, Defense, and the Transmutation of Egalitarian Society
Date: 22 Dec 92 17:00:42 GMT
Organization: Somewhere in Hoboken

isn't it fair to assume that since offense = defense , that 
 
hitting + running+bunting is 50% of the game

and 

pitching + fielding is 50% of the game?

 - bob gaj
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: jpalmer@uwovax.uwo.ca (The Econoclast)
Subject: Re: Expos Clinch! Wallach to Dodgers
Organization: University of Western Ont, London
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 11:32:34 GMT

In article <Dec.25.11.18.10.1992.29937@pilot.njin.net>, gajarsky@pilot.njin.net (Bob Gajarsky - Hobokenite) writes:
> 
> i think wallach is as bad an offensive player as everyone else
>  here on the net, but...looking in my STATS books from
>  '92 and '91 seasons, wallach is 2nd best in the majors last
>  year (in limited time) and 4th in the n.l. in '91 (which
>  correspodns roughly to average) in range.  
> 
> so why does everyone refer to him as a poor fielder?  

Is this another example of the divergence between range factors and defensive
averages? Like Gaj, I saw the range factors for Wallach and wondered
if possibly he had been under-rated defensively. But then I dug out
the defensive averages (the second column below is the NL avg adjusted
ground ball defensive average for regular 3rd-base players; the third
column are Wallach's stats):

Year	League Avg	Wallach		Wallach's Rank in the League

1988	.643		.728			2/11
1989	.625		.674			3/12
1990	.602		.600			11/13
1991	.623		.630			6/10

	These numbers hint that Wallach may be losing a step or two. 

-- 
  Regards,

  John Palmer    London, Ontario       Voice: (519) 661-3533     FAX: 661-3666
  reply to jpalmer@uwovax.uwo.ca       The Economics Institute for Journalists
  ============================================================================
  Waiting by my phone, Bud.

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: wynblatt@sbgrad5.cs.sunysb.edu (Michael Wynblatt)
Subject: Re: Can you go home again? (wasRe: ward to atlant
Organization: State University of New York at Stony Brook
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 23:36:03 GMT

In article <92Dec23.152850.21617@acs.ucalgary.ca> garbe@smith.phys.ucalgary.ca (Greg Garbe) writes:
>|> In article <19DEC199215593568@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu> yankees@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu (Kenneth M Gelfand) writes:
>|> >>Dateline Wed, 16/Dec92 03:39.
>|> >> 
>|> >>How many players have started their careers with a team, been traded, then later in their career traded back?
>|> >> 
>|> 

>How about recent Reds signee Darnell Coles.  He started his career in Seattle,  they traded him, he was
>traded a few more times and then the Mariners reacquired him.  To top it off they traded him once again
>two years ago.

And the kicker ... both times they traded him to Detroit.
(I believe the first time for Rich Monteleone and the second time for Tracey Jones).

Michael
From: charly@hal.COM (Charly Rhoades)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Brave staff greatest in recent history?
Date: 22 Dec 92 02:05:10 GMT
Organization: HaL Computer Systems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: renoir.hal.com

In article <78340@hydra.gatech.EDU> ccastmm@prism.gatech.EDU (Mike Marler) writes:
>
>Steve had a nasty habit of giving lots of 0-2 hits last year.  Drove me crazy.
>-- 
>Mike Marler                        | "Saving every nickel to spend on my

That's odd, because the STATS 1993 Player Profiles book shows Avery being
rather repsectable both when ahead in the count and when having two strikes
on the batter (granted, the latter is a subset of the other, according to
STATS' definitions, and neither totally describes your situation):

           BA     AB    H    2B 3B HR   RBI     BB   SO      OBP   SLG
Ahead     .194   407   79    13  2  4    30      0  110     .193  .265
2 strkes  .174   386   67     8  2  4    26     26  129     .225  .236

I don't doubt that every time he gave up an 0-2 hit, no matter how
infrequent, it still drove you crazy....
-- 
   Charly Rhoades               
                                   This message provided for
   HaL Computer Systems           informational purposes only
   charly@hal.com
From: snichols@adobe.com (Sherri Nichols)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Offense, Defense, and the Transmutation of Egalitarian Society
Date: 23 Dec 92 02:41:54 GMT
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated

In article <1992Dec22.064548.1964@panix.com> spira@panix.com (Greg "Sarcasm Is A Way Of Life" Spira) writes:
>
>Doc Dave pens 
>>Whoever it was was being silly, since offense has to be 50% of baseball, by
>>sheer symmetry.  Scoring runs and preventing them are equally important to
>>winning.
>
>Weeeeeeeeeel.... yes, if you look at it that way.
>
>But is the balance between offense and defense really the same in baseball
>as in a slow-pitch softball game with 4 fielders?
>
>Yes, preventing runs and scoring runs is equally important.  But I'm not sure
>that's the same thing.  If you change the rules of baseball, and make it
>much harder to prevent runs, doesn't offense become more important and
>defense less so?

Weeeeeeeel... you're both right.  Greg, you're right that it doesn't
automatically follow from "scoring runs and preventing runs are equally
important" to a 50-50 split, but Dr. Dave is right in that Major League
Baseball really does seem to have a 50-50 split.  

Several years ago, we looked at the variance in runs scored and runs
allowed in each league year since the turn of the century, and the
variance in runs scored was equal to the variance in runs allowed.  If the
offense-defense split were other than 50-50, I would expect the variances
to differ.

Sherri Nichols
snichols@adobe.com
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: jao@majorca.progress.com (Jeffrey A. Owen)
Subject: Re: Jason Abner Miller and the Mets - a Nude Revue!
Organization: Progress Software Corp.
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 17:09:51 GMT

In article <20562@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu>, ez027993@dale.ucdavis.edu (Gary L. Huckabay) writes:
 
|> >	The Mets need direction.  Trading Cone and letting Magadan walk,
|> >and geting nearly nothing in return, did not help. 
|> 
|> Agreed.  But 'direction' is a mighty ephemeral concept.  I prefer "The Mets 
|> need to wake up, get an offense, get a defense, and realize that Dwight
|> Gooden isn't a #1 starter anymore.  He might be OK with a real defense
|> behind him, and he might be a winner if we could score some runs.  Let's
|> start by taking out Vince Coleman, and shooting him."
|> 
This is right on.  Gooden clearly isnt a #1 starter anymore and the lack of a good
defense puts more pressure on all the starters.  Until they start putting people on 
the field who dont use card board boxes as gloves the leader/guidance is a non-issue.

|> > I think putting a guy
|> >like Cito in charge of the Mets would hurt as badly as putting Torborg
|> >in charge did; could Cito make all the Mets perform as one?
|> 
|> The idea is to get them to perform as nine when on the field.  They
|> looked like about 6.85 on defense last year.
|> 
Again right on.  Getting everyone on the same page once they are at the ball park is
the responsibility of the manager.  As a Mets fan, I'm not very confident Torborg is
the guy to do this.

Its going to be another tough year, the division is weak, but probably not weak enough.



----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Owen				UUCP: mit-eddie!progress!jao
Software Engineer     			UUNET: jao@progress.com
Progress Software Corporation           
14 Oak Park
Bedford, MA 01730
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Opinions are my own, not my employer's
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: maynard@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Roger Maynard)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Tanana
Date: 3 Jan 93 19:58:58 GMT
Article-I.D.: ramsey.1993Jan3.195858.28737
Distribution: na
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Laurentian University, Sudbury, ON

In <1993Jan3.092840.4493@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:

>In fact, I think that the top echelon of talent in AAA would probably be
>average in the major leagues.  I think the major difference is that
>there is a bigger dropoff from them to the rest of AAA than the
>difference in the majors.  But I could put together a AAA all-star team
>that would win 90+ games in the majors.

True stathead arrogance here.  What evidence do you offer to support this
assertion?  Absolutely none.  I doubt if you could put together a little 
league team...

rm

-- 
Roger Maynard
maynard@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball