HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: msw10@nepenthe.as (Michael S. Wong)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Cone and Overwork?
Date: 3 Sep 92 17:54:45 GMT
Reply-To: msw10@nepenthe.as
Organization: Sun Microsystems


In article 7626@panix.com, spira@panix.com (Greg "Sarcasm Is A Way Of Life" Spira) writes:
>
[russ smith and Gary Spira's previous postings deleted]
>
>What I mean is that research indicates that it might be easier for a
>pitcher to handle 40 7 inning starts than 31 9 inning starts because
>with the latter, the pitcher is pitching more innings when his arm has  
>already had a full workout of 7 innings.  In the former, the pitcher is
>pitching the same amount of innings but is never putting the extra strain
>of those 2 last 2 innings after tiredness has set in.
>
I can't believe that no one seems to acknowledge this. It seems so fundamental
too me. Anyone who has played sports knows it's much easier to re-injure
oneself if a previous injury is stressed without proper healing. By the same
token, it seems clear too me that the after the damage done by pitching 7
innings the additional damage done by each subsequent pitch is substantially
more than that done by each pitch in say, the 1st 2 innings. You reduce the
number of pitches thrown/start, you reduce pitcher fatigue (more than linearly),
and the pitcher is recovered sooner.

Moreover, Craig Wright compiled some statistics that showed that, in general,
pitchers throw *better* on 3 days rest than 4 (probably something to do
with memory and muscle atrophy). So not only do you reduce fatigue, injuries,
you get more IPs (and more importantly for an Ace, more starts) and more
Quality Starts.

The big hurdle of course, is getting managers like Roger Craig and Jeff Torborg
who are into counting chest hairs to actually significantly reduce the workload
per start. Then, it would be tricky to determine each pitcher's "fatigue threshold"
after which difference if fatigue becomes significantly greater and greater.
Roger Craig went with a 4-man rotation for a while in 1990 but pitched everyone
the same way he did in a 5-man rotation and the results were disastrous.


Michael Wong
msw10@amdahl.com
Organization: University of Maine System
Date: Sunday, 30 Aug 1992 00:32:03 EDT
From: Ryan R Robbins <IO20456@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Clark traded from the Sox?
 <1992Aug28.165245.4360@u.washington.edu>

Contrary to rumors flying around about both Jack Clark and Jeff Reardon,
neither one of them has quit the team or been traded. Before the Red
Sox vs Angels game Friday night Reardon talked with Red Sox radio ann-
ouncers off the air. Reardon told them, as did Clark, that they were
only doing some housecleaning with their lockers. Since Clark lives
in California, he left early with some "junk" from his locker that
he took home. In fact, it was said that Reardon and Clark thought it
was funny the way people were reacting to their lockers being cleaned
out.

+===============================================================+
||   RYAN ROBBINS                    INTERNET:                 ||
||   UNIVERSITY OF MAINE             IO20456@MAINE.MAINE.EDU   ||
+===============================================================+
From: psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: DAVID CONE TO BLUE JAYS
Date: 30 Aug 92 16:24:00 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Aug27.210323.14559@terminator.cc.umich.edu> sweda@css.itd.umich.edu (Sean Sweda) writes:
>
>Actually, my money would be on Magadan at third and Kent at second, since
>that's his natural position.  What really would be interesting is if the
>Mets try to sign Cone in the off-season, thus getting Kent and (Sprague?)
>for a 1st round draft pick.
>
>c-ya
>
>Sean

Actually from what I hear it goes more like this...

IF Hojo isn't traded, and there's still a good chance of that happening,
he will go back to third.  The Mets are now openly saying that he gave it
his best shot but the experiment was a failure.  Assuming Johnson doesn't
get traded and the PTBNL is Thompson next year's Mets should look something
like this...

1B Dave Magadan 	(Murray signed for only one year didn't he?)
2B Jeff Kent    	(his natural position)
3B Howard Johnson 	(got a better idea?)
SS Kevin Elster/	(I know what you're saying but read the last paragraph) 
   Dick Schofield 
CF Ryan Thompson	(if he's really the PTBNL)
RF Bobby Bonilla	
LF Vince Coleman	(Though I suspect they won't be able to resist the 
			 temptation of trying to sign Bonds, they never learn)
C  Hundley     

Of course this is just my best guess based on what I hear on the New York 
radio.  And all subject to revision pending the expansion draft results and
the annual free agent feeding frenzy.  

Before you yell at me about the Kevin Elster thing, I too would have thought
that he would not be with the Mets next year but I heard whatzhisface (the GM
of the Mets) on Kiner's TV show and he made a point talking about Elster having
more pop in his bat and how they are really hoping his shoulder is okay for
next season because they are counting on him to recover and add some offense
to the Mets lineup.  Got me?  I guess they will protect him and give him another
shot.

PSG

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: stanm@comm.mot.com (Stan Macasieb)
Subject: Cubs No-Hitters
Reply-To: stanm@comm.mot.com
Organization: Motorola
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 21:40:32 GMT

On Sunday's Wally Phillips' show on WGN-AM (720), on his "Who Am I?"
segment, Milt Pappas had made an appearance. Any Cubs fan worth his
bleacher seat knows that Pappas pitched the last Cubs no-hitter back
in September of 1972. Almost 20 years ago.

Boy, did Jim Bullinger have a big chance to supplant Pappas in the
recordbooks yesterday.

******************************************************************************
--Stan Macasieb (stanm@comm.mot.com)              |  Jim Bullinger
--Motorola, Land Mobile Products Sector           |    Cubs MVP, 1992
--Schaumburg, IL (just another suburb of Chicago) |  
--------------------------------------------------|
~~The opinion expressed in this post is not       |  "You got a problem
~~necessarily those of this corporation.          |   with that?" 
~~Copyright 1992, all rights reserved.            |   -- Roger Clemens
******************************************************************************
From: genetic+@pitt.edu (Dr. Dave)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Lies, Damn Lies, & Statistics (was Re: The Monthly Cecil Fielder Thread
Date: 3 Sep 92 18:31:07 GMT
Organization: Department of Industrial Engineering

Thus spake 91287041@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Roger Maynard):
>
>Why not Tabler?  Is 50-102 (or whatever) not a big enough sample size?

Exactly.  Especially after you take into account the fact that you're only
looking at Tabler because he was the extreme point in a large population of
players.  If I toss 200 coins 100 times each, one of them will likely show
a very skewed ratio of heads to tails, even if all the coins are fair.

>Using the same logic I can tell you that there is a strong corelation
>between RBI's and runs scored...

At a team level, trivially.  At an individual level, not at all.  We were
talking about the individual level.

(To see this, imagine a new stat, called "IBRs", awarded as follows: every 
 time the team scores a run, an IBR is awarded at random to some current
 member of the 24-man roster of that team.  Thus, the team has a perfect
 correlation between runs scored and IBRs, but IBRs are totally useless as
 an indication of individual usefulness.  RBIs are like IBRs, just not quite
 as bad.)

>RBI's are strongly corelated with runs scored.  Since we are trying to measure
>an individual's participation in the total runs scored by the team (and not 
>the player's ability) 

Um, we are?  I thought we were trying to measure individual ability.  That's
what everyone *said* we were trying to measure...

>RBI's are a strong indicator of how many runs scored an individual 
>individual participated in.  How many of the player's on this list would have
>as many RBI's (or participated in as many runs scored) as Cecil has if they
>were batting in his place? 

All of those with higher SLGs.  In other words, lots and lots.

>I think it has become trendy to knock Fielder.  Fielder is a good ball
>player.  He may not be the best but he is far from the worst.  He is
>consistent and he comes to play.  He is a valuable part of Detroit's
>offense.  

Change that to "he's far from the best and far from the worst", and I agree
completely.


-- 
      David M. Tate      | From my dugout sleep I fell into the Game
 dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu | And I crouched in the circle while my insides froze
 Randall 'Chico' Jarrell | One out from death, one hit from dreamt-of glory
"Death of a Pinch Hitter"| I woke to 'Strike One!' and the nightmare sliders...
From: demers@cs.ucsd.edu (David DeMers)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: CUB'S MADDUX EASY CHOICE FOR CY
Date: 1 Sep 92 15:27:05 GMT
Article-I.D.: sdcc12.37534
Organization: =CSE Dept., U.C. San Diego

In article <bacarlso.715320082@silver> bacarlso@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Brad Carlson) writes:
>...  With the run support of a team
>such as the Padres or Twins, Maddux could be 26-0, 

Just wanted to point out that the impression that the Padres score
a lot of runs is false.  The Padres are 6th in the league in
runs.  What they do is score them suddenly on HRs.  And they
have a high BA.  But only McGriff draws walks...  Chicago
is the only NL team with fewer walks than San Diego.  Thus
the Padres OBP is low & they hit a lot of solo HRs.  (Like
McGriff's 475 footer a couple days ago.  It still only counts
the same as a 375 foot HR...).

Though two odd things - the Padres are not scoring as much
as RC predicts, but they are winning more than Pythagorean
projections...

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: jld@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (J. L. David)
Subject: Re: Cubs Protected 15?????
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 00:40:43 GMT

In article <2534@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>, raistlin@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (The Joker) writes:
> Having only been a baseball fan for about 5 years now (just REALLY
> starting to get into the game), and being a Cub fan, could someone
> tell me if they know who the 15 protected players will be?  I can venture
> the following guesses.  Does anyone know more?
> 
> Protected (I think)
> Mark Grace
> Ryne Sandberg 
> Shawon Dunston
> Doug Dacenzo

I seriously doubt that Dascenzo will be protected.  He certainly is
NOT one of the most 15 valuable/promising players on the Cubs.

> Greg Maddux (*IF* he signs and doesn't do that  Free Agent Dance)

Nobody is going to sign Maddox before 11/17 so he won't count.

> Rey Sanchez  (could be a third baseman)

He almost certainly will be protected but he will never be a third baseman.

> Mike Harkey
> Sammy Sosa
> 
Mike Morgan
Steve Buechele
Bob Scanlon
Rick Wilkins
Frank Castillo

are certainties to be protected.  I believe they HAVE to protect
Morgan and Buechele because of their contracts.  That's 11 on my
list.  They will probably protect Derrick May and either Paul
Assenmacher or Chuck McElroy.  Jim Bullinger is also a possibility.
Of course, there are probably a couple of hot prospects in the
low minors that will be on this list.  Players that will almost
certainly NOT be protected:

Joe Girardi
Dwight Smith
Shawn Boskie
Jeff Robinson
Jose Viscaino
Gary Scott :-)
Heathcliff Slocumb
Hector Villanueva
Luis Salazar

Girardi and Boskie will probably be among the first additional
"protectees" if they are not chosen in the first round.

Jeff David
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: rhemler@ems.cdc.com (Bob Hemler)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: OMIGOD...it's the Ninth Deep Drive Derby Update!! (long, tall, wide)
Keywords: Ben McDonald, tater
Date: 27 Aug 92 16:10:34 GMT
Reply-To: rhemler@ems.cdc.com
Organization: Empros Systems International, a division of CDC

(lots of lines deleted)

|> Ben McDonald True Tater Name Search:
|> 
|> We at the BB DD RI have recently decided that Ben is indeed worthy of
|> a True Tater Name for his impressive performance so far this year, and
|> have decided to seek your help officially in divining one.  We have
|> already received several suggestions in advance of this public
|> announcement, including all of the following (honestly):
|> 
|> "Big Bang" McDonald
|> "Big Mac" McDonald
|> "Do Fries Go with that Shake?" McDonald
|> Ben "Galvanek" McDonald
|> 
|> We aren't convinced that one of these is really the best one, and, no,
|> we won't tell you who suggested "Galvanek" or what the warped reasoning
|> behind it was.

How about: Ben "Tater Farmer" McDonald
		or Ben "dover and watch it" MacDonald
		or "What hap" Ben MacDonald?
		
		(Lots more deleted> 

		Bob Hemler
From: rstimets@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (robert and stimets)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: NL Schedule 1993
Date: 3 Sep 92 23:20:56 GMT
Organization: Indiana University

In article <1992Sep3.210608.11250@ncar.ucar.edu> baseball@catch-the-fever.scd.ucar.edu (Gregg Walters) writes:

>
>If I remember right, the  present alignment was partly influenced by the desire
>to balance the competition as it was then.  Dodgers, Giants, Reds, and Braves
>in the West, and Cubs, Cards, Pirates and the potential of redeveloping rivalries
>with a New York market in the East.  This put two expansion teams in each division,
>but it also broke up the Pirates/Reds rivalry, something that could be restored under
>Fay Vincent's plan.  Of course, if the Giants are moved to the Eastern division,
>the Reds should stay in the West.  In fact, this scenario should diminish the Cubs
Which would be fine with me except that it really solves the geography problem for
everyone EXCEPT Cincinnati.

>concerns about west coast visits.  Additionally, if in the long term the NL stays
>with the AL type schedule they just adopted for 1993, then the business losses
>feared by the Cubs start looking pretty small.  Sheesh, why don't the Cubs fight
>this hard to build a winner?  They could get a quality ball player for the money
>they are probably gonna spend blocking realignment...
>
>Here's a thought about the Cubs image, that might start a new thread.  Doesn't
>the Cubs squeaky clean deportment, suggest a Disneyland kind of operation?
>Lotsa fluff and not enough stuff?  They make money without winning, and don't
>make news about drugs/traffic/family incidents?  The Tribune's bullying of
>the league is tarnishing this image, and their posturing to protect the
>fans seems paternalistic.
>
Perhaps that was my point.

RStimets
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: hasch@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu (Bruce M Hasch)
Subject: Re: Fighting & Baldwin(pens)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University - HCF
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 20:26:00 GMT

In article <YeafCN200Uh707C7MY@andrew.cmu.edu>, Pravin Devineni Ratnam <pr0i+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes...
> 
> 
> 
>I think Howard Baldwin is wrong in attacking fighting in the NHL at
>those committee meetings.. He could campaign for reducing fighting by
>proposing to introduce a few new minor deterrances.But I don't think
>it's worthwhile to campaign for virtually total elimination of fighting. 
> 
>I think he should concentrate more on eliminating the cheap stickwork
>engaged by gutless players. I don't mind an occasional fight. Frequent
>fighting could be penalised heavily. That would take care of full time
>goons to a certain extent. We need 3 referees who can call most of the
>cheap stickwork.

I agree!  The next time Craig Berube or Marty McSorley tries to break up
a double play with a high-stick, we should throw him out!

Sorry, dude, unless you're talking about the ex-careers of Kirk McCaskill or
Tom Glavine, you've got the wrong newsgroup...

Although this has made me think of a SCARY thought.  Sam Horn on skates. Yikes! 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce 'Beaten Like A Rented Mule' Hasch        hasch@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: bharriso@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (Bob Harrison)
Subject: Re: Boggs Toronto Bound?
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 13:51:06 GMT


My 2cents worth .....leave boggs alone ...we dont want him ...for what you would have to pay, and for what you might get for Gruber, Id rather just wait and trade Gruber and someone (pick your choice of middle releivers) for a starting 
pitcher. 
Boggs is not in his prime anymore !!


Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: gilford@vuse.vanderbilt.edu (Gilford T. Hapanyengwi)
Subject: Re: What is slugging percentage?
Organization: Vanderbilt University CS Dept.
	<1992Sep3.111800.801@ccsvax.sfasu.edu>
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 19:27:25 GMT

   >>
   >>Would someone fill in an ignorant casual fan as to exactly what the slugging
   >>percentage is? Thanks.
   > 
   > 
   > To calculate slugging pct:
   > 
   >     (1*singles+2*doubles+3*triples+4*HRs)/# of AB
   > 
   >      The more extra-base hits, the higher the SLG.

What is the highest season slugging percentage which has ever been
recorded and by whom?  Feel free to give more than one if you have the
stats. 

Cheers,


--
<><><><><><><><>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><<>>
Gilford T. Hapanyengwi       | LIFE IS NOT A BED OF ROSES  
(615) 322-3552               |-Nyasha Shasha
gilford@vuse.vanderbilt.edu  |
hapanyg@vuctrvax.bitnet
From: z_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: just a question
Date: 3 Sep 92 22:23:29 CST
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University

In article <1992Sep3.234232.8347@leland.Stanford.EDU>, claudius@leland.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu) writes:
> In article <92247.153622ENVIRON@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> ENVIRON@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU writes:
>>
>>     Unless the manager wants his slugger to take the mound (possible but
>>doubtful) he needs to put a real pitcher in place of the pinch hitter, who
>>can no longer play in the game.  He doesn't get an at-bat or a plate
>>appearance, but he has played in the game and been removed, so can't come
>>back.  Next inning the manager has the option of leaving his new pitcher
>>in to bat or putting in a different pinch hitter...
> 
> Another option, that allows you to leave the pinch hitter in the game, is
> to do a double-switch.

	That's most likely what I would do -- leave the batter in the game, and
put the pitcher in the lowest batting position (of the idiot who got picked
off, if possible :-)) where the pinch-hitter could play that position.

Brandon Cope

(sorry if that sounded confusing)
From: Graham_Sloan@abcd.Houghton.MI.US (Graham Sloan)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: CUB'S MADDUX EASY CHOICE FOR CY
Distribution: world
Date: 3 Sep 92 21:43:21 EST
Organization: Amiga BitSwap Central Dispatch

You're argument is good, but if we're going to give the Cy Young to the ace
pitcher on a division leading ballclub, what's the point? Let's look at who
is actually the best PITCHER, not winner, ERA, strikeouter, etc. but the
whole package. I doubt Glavine's ERA will end up under 2.75 and he'll
probably have at least 7 losses...

-- Via DLG Pro v0.995

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Lies, Damn Lies, & Statistics (was Re: The Monthly Cecil Fielder Thread
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 18:36:33 GMT

In article <1992Sep04.165428.45907@watson.ibm.com> mjones@donald.aix.kingston.ibm.com writes:
>In article <1992Sep3.175424.9344@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca> 91287041@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Roger Maynard) writes:
>>In <1992Sep3.005752.13903@midway.uchicago.edu> nss3@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Noel Steere) writes:

>>>you postulate above).  I mean, who would you rather have at the plate
>>>with the bases loaded, Frank Thomas or Pat Tabler (Tabler is something
>>>like 50-for-102 in that specific situation)?  I'll give you one guess
>>>(two if you guess Tabler :-)).

>>Why not Tabler?  Is 50-102 (or whatever) not a big enough sample size?

>It's getting close. 100AB is about where batting numbers begin to become
>significant.

I'm not sure what this means.  Are you referring to the general bandwidth
of batting numbers as they occur?  And *which* batting numbers do you
mean?  

You can have a significant difference between samples of 30 AB, too.  

(Actually, using .250 as a basic BA, your s.d. with 100 AB is about 42
points, i.e., .042.  So a significance test would only come up positive
at the .05 level if the two BA's were almost 100 points apart.)

> The larger point is that there's not reason to believe that
>Tabler hasn't been the one guy out of everybody in baseball over the last
>few years who has been that lucky, or that he won't stop being lucky
>tomorrow.

Exactly.

Roger

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: leone@wpi.WPI.EDU (David M Leone)
Subject: Red Sucks 15
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 01:57:47 GMT
From: f67700241@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (Greg Franklin)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Mets trade Cone
Date: 28 Aug 92 13:20:03 GMT
Followup-To: rec.sport.baseball
Distribution: na,local
Organization: University of Arizona
Nntp-Posting-User: f67700241

In article <rmk0-280892081525@132.197.9.225>, rmk0@gte.com (Richard Klein) writes:
>In article <1992Aug27.144029.1@violet.ccit.arizona.edu>,
>f67700241@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (Greg Franklin) wrote:
>> No, seriously, I think the Mets owners are trying to hold the line on salaries
>> once and for all.  The consequences of all those high-priced big-name acqui-
>> sitions of 1988-92 are coming home to roost, forcing the Mets to let go of a
>> good free agent they can't sign.
> 
> According to this morning's Boston Globe, Cone wants 5 years at close to
> $30M.  The Mets claim they won't go more than 3 on a pitcher.

That's reasonable.  Pitchers aren't as consistent as position players, so you
can't count on them for more than 3 years.  (Yeah, like the ever-inconsistent
Cone.)

I think the Mets would modify this reg just a WEE bit if it was
Clemens or Eckersley coming up for free agency....

The point is, if the Mets didn't want to sign Cone, this was probably the
best deal they could've gotten.  They still lost out, because now there is
no solid #1 starter on the pitching staff, and no one since the 87 Cards
has won anything with such a staff.

Does anyone know how long all the Mets' free agent signees are locked up
for?
-- 
Greg "Mockingbird" Franklin      Interviewer: "Sir, how do you spell relief?"
f67700241@ccit.arizona.edu               Dan: "R-O-L-A-I-D-S-E."
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball