HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: marwood@csri.toronto.edu (Simon Marwood)
Subject: Gary Carter retires
Organization: CSRI, University of Toronto
Date: 26 Sep 92 05:38:31 GMT


Montreal Expos catcher Gary Carter announced at an emotional news
conference today that he would be retiring as an active player at the
end of the season. Carter will be remaining in the organization, likely
as a broadcaster. "The Kid" will likely be subject to standing
ovations in all of his remaining Olympic Stadium appearances.

Simon

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Simon Marwood		 | "Is this the train to Desert Moon?" was all she said
marwood@csri.toronto.edu | But I knew I'd heard that stranger's voice before...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: zuhars@madrone.eecs.ucdavis.edu (Gary Didi Seven Huckabay)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Amit's World Streaking Tour '92!
Keywords: Smooch.
Date: 30 Sep 92 19:34:31 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Lance Smith Lip Gloss Merchants, Ltd. [Till Division]

Lance "Little Tongues of the Poor" Smith writes:

>The Brewhas bet is actually based on a response to a Kruegerpost (so you
>should have gotten it right, oh saline one.) On July 28, Gary "Seattle
>Wins the Pennant! Seattle Wins the Pennant!" Huckabay stated:
>
>  "And if they play .667 ball from here on out, I'll french kiss Dave
>   Kirsch.  (Think anyone will save this text?   :-)" 

Sounds to me like you have a faulty news feed, O Mr. Smith.  I'm
certain that I'd never speak such words.  Oh, wait, I think I've found
the original text...

jlundy@blibo.encore.com writes:

>If they play .667 ball from here on out, I'll make certain Amit
>has PLENTY of sunscreen all over his body, for maximum sun safety.

I hope this clears up any confusion on the topic.  If you need
anything else, clarified, please don't hesitate to ask.

Don't buy it?  Oh well.  Then I think Dave Kirsch joins me in saying,
as the Brewers come to Oakland for the last series of the season....

Let's Go A's!  

Otherwise, pucker up, Dave.

>It is left as an exercise for the reader to decide whether Gary will be
>making a trip to Minnesota in the near future.

Perhaps for 'disk maintenance purposes.'



-- 
* Gary Huckabay * "We need MORE people in the league.  8 isn't going to *
* "Gurgle. Eep."*  cut it.  It's a blast.  Why would someone NOT want   *
* "Acck.  Unh." *  to play?" "Perhaps because you and Chu always pull   *
* "Jose. Igg."  * rabbits out of your hat at the draft." "Ha.  Fear."   *
From: gajarsky@pilot.njin.net (Bob Gajarsky)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Why *is* OBP more valuable than SLG?
Date: 27 Sep 92 21:18:05 GMT
Organization: Somewhere in Hoboken


can anyone explain WHY (with reasoning, or whatever) why OBP is
 considered more valuable than SLG?  

Thanks. - bob gaj
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: hainer+@pitt.edu (Jon M Hainer)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: PIRATES AGIAIN!!!
Date: 5 Oct 92 03:59:02 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <Men7OtW00VpN4_xEgV@andrew.cmu.edu> al1x+@andrew.cmu.edu (Amit Likhyani) writes:
>Excerpts from netnews.rec.sport.baseball: 2-Oct-92 Re: PIRATES AGIAIN!!!
>Eric Alva Dunmire@andrew (864)
>
>> Bonds will stay in Pittsburgh.  He can see that his buddy Bonilla found
>> out that money doesn't mean winning. 
>
>> Drabek will be gone. He'll go for more money than the pirates will offer him.
>
>
>God I hope you are right.  If they do sign Bonds, they probably won't
>even offer Drabek another contract.

During the recent Mets @ Pirates series, there was an interview on WOR
between the Mets announcers and Ted Simmons, the GM of the Pirates.
When asked about Bonds, Simmons came right out and said that he had
talked to Barry and they had agreed that it was unrealistic for the
Pirates to even make him an offer.  He noted that due to the small
market in Pittsburgh the Pirates cannot make a competitive bid.

Bonds will walk next year.  This hopefully means they *will* save
enough to sign Drabek.

Jon M. Hainer
University of Pittsburgh
hainer@vms.cis.pitt.edu
  


Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: genetic+@pitt.edu (Dr. Dave)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Sheffield is NL MVP
Date: 30 Sep 92 20:25:00 GMT
Organization: Department of Industrial Engineering

Thus spake fester@island.COM (Mike Fester):
>For confirmation, see this year's Detroit and Baltimore teams.
>
>(through Sept 21)
>Baltimore .342 OBP, .402 SLG, 651 runs
>Detroit   .336 OBP, .407 SLG, 724 runs
>
>Who exactly has "preconceived" ideas here? 


Yep, Mike is absolutely right.

This opens up whole new vistas of science, too.  Just this morning I proved
that you're more likely to get a '1' on a die than you are to get an even
number.  How?  By a rolling die, which came up '1'.

Similarly, my uncle proved that smoking doesn't have anything to do with
lung cancer, by getting lung cancer *without* smoking.

Not to mention, of course, that Raphael Belliard has successfully squelched
the notion that how good a hitter you are has something to do with how likely
you are to get a hit, simply by getting a hit when the probabilities said he
most likely wouldn't.

-- 
       David Tate        |"Out of the dugout endlessly swinging,
 dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu | Out of the manager's throat, the sound fundamentals,
 Prof. of Story Problems | Out of the six-month season..."            
 Member ORSA, TIMS, SABR | 	Walt "Lefty" Whitman
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: scott@asd.com (Scott Barman)
Subject: Re: Lasorda coming back?
Organization: American Software Development Corp., West Babylon, NY
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 17:59:10 GMT

In article <1aj1mfINN49q@mizar.usc.edu> pcaster@mizar.usc.edu (Dodger) writes:
>IF the Giants remain in San Francisco, look for Tommy to remain as
>manager for one more year.  The Dodgers rarely fire managers because
>of a bad year....look how few managers they have had over the years.
>And even Walter Alston had some bad teams from time to time...although
>none were quite so bad as THIS YEAR's Dodgers.  But can you blame
>Tommy?  Is it his fault that Darryl and Eric hardly played all year?
>The Dodgers lost a ton of one run games....how many of those might
>have been wins with a healthy Darryl and/or Eric?  I'm not saying
>the Dodgers would have won the pennant if they were healthy...but
>they aren't as bad as their record indicates.

Yes they are, or they wouldn't have that record.  If you can say that
then I can say the same thing about the Mets.  I can ask what would have
happened if Howard Johnson was there the entire year, Bobby Bonilla did
not spend time on the DL, Dave Magadan, Bret Saberhagen, and so on.  But
this is *not* the case.  Both teams played to their level and the
records show it.  EVERY team gets injuries and has to deal with it. 
Look at Oakland!  How many games have their "regular" outfield played? 
And where are they today?

>If I was Peter O'Malley, I'd fire Fred Claire, who engineered this team.

Maybe this was the problem.  Maybe they did not have the talent to carry
them through the hard times, like the A's did.  Maybe if they did have
the talent, the maybe the O'Malley and Claire look at the job Larussa
did versus the job Lasorda did and examine things in that light.

I'm sorry, but if the Mets can lead the majors in surgery and still be
considered a lousey team, then that team in Los Angeles can join them in
the lousey catagory!

Enjoy the playoffs!
-- 
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: lsmith@deci.cs.umn.edu (Lance "Squiddie" Smith)
Subject: Re: Replacing Puckett (was Re: Arrogance, Statheads, and Life.)
Organization: Upper Deck Squids of the Poor
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 18:14:21 GMT

In <6OCT199210243631@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov> ecaxron@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Ron Graham) writes:

>In article <1992Oct5.203237.9842@news2.cis.umn.edu>, lsmith@deci.cs.umn.edu 
>     (Lance "Squiddie" Smith) writes...

>>I'm not too happy about a 4 year contract, but given the choice I'd
>>prefer Smiley. It also means I wouldn't have to put up with the juvenile
>>crowd in the upper deck.

>Upper deck notwithstanding, who takes over if Puckett leaves?  Please
>don't say "Gene Larkin" ;-).  But I would like to know.

My guess is that the Twins would go with a "defensive" fielder for a 
season. That is a speedy fielder with little offense. Along the lines of
Jarvis "World Series Ring" Brown or J.T. Bruett. This person takes the
bottom of the batting order. Mack and Munoz stay where they're at. Then
they can move The Stanford Kid up at midseason. (The Twins seem to like 
letting players sit in Portland.) 

Or the Twins could eal for someone else for one or two seasons. They can
offer Willie Banks or David West as trade bait. Please. 

I'm also guessing Greg Gagne is gone and that they either promote a 
prospect from the minors this year or delay another year with Leius,
Reboulet, or Gilbert filling in a season until a young shortstop can
be found.

Just to clarify, I would like to see Kirby stick around. He may be overrated,
but he's a nice guy and fun to watch. For the long term, Kirby's contract
might do more harm than good, so given the choice I'd say blow a little
less money on the pitcher and hope that some of the prospects in the system
turn out OK.
--
     Lance "William Blake?" Smith     |   "Bring me my bat of burning gold!
         (lsmith@cs.umn.edu)          |    Bring me my pine tar of desire!
 "The Cat. He walked by himself, and  |    Bring me my glove! O clouds unfold!
    all places were alike to him."    |    Bring me my fastball of fire!"
From: drw3l@delmarva.evsc.Virginia.EDU (David Robert Walker)
Subject: Re: Why bother to watch the World Series?
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 14:50:05 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.190022.882@mala.bc.ca> epp@mala.bc.ca (Lorne Epp) writes:
>In article <1992Oct2.184114.22491@adobe.com>, snichols@adobe.com (Sherri Nichols) writes:
>> In article <1992Oct2.175240.14804@leland.Stanford.EDU> daveshao@leland.stanford.edu (David Shao) writes:
>> 
>Although I think David Shao overstated his case, he has a good point.
>(Here I reproduce his home field advantage table)
>
>Home advantage:
>
>             LCS            WS
>             -------        --
>even years:  AL East        NL
>             NL West        
>	     
>odd years:   AL west        AL
>             NL east    
>
>If this table is correct, it means that an Eastern division team (in
>either league) can never have home field advantage in both the LCS and
>WS, while Western division teams can.  If there is any advantage at all
>to playing at home, this scheme is unfair to Eastern division teams.
>It's possible that the baseball powers-that-be didn't notice this when 
>they came up with this plan.
>
>What is needed is a four-year cycle:
>
>             LCS            WS
>             -------        --
>year 1       AL East        NL
>             NL West        
>	     
>year 2       AL west        AL
>             NL east    
>
>year 3       AL East        AL
>             NL West        
>	     
>year 4       AL west        NL
>             NL east    
>
>That way each division gets a crack at the double home advantage
>once every four years.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Lorne Epp                                               epp@mala.bc.ca

Why not just scrap the alternating divisions thing, and give home
field advantage to the team with the best record in the league?
Then no one can "predict" anything from the preseason. Have to 
alternate leagues in the WS, though; with no interleague play (keep it
that way) you can't compare the wins.

Clay D.
From: pcaster@mizar.usc.edu (Dodger)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Dodgers Bullpen Strikes Again
Date: 25 Sep 1992 23:20:28 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: mizar.usc.edu

For the second night in a row, the Dodgers' bullpen blew a game
in late innings.  Seems like all the pitchers are doing Tim
Crews imitations these days.

The Dodgers took a 3-2 lead into the ninth inning.  Kevin Gross
was pitching very well, retiring 13 straight, then giving up
2 runs in the fifth, then retiring 10 straight.  He gave up a cheap
infield single in the ninth and was relieved by Candelaria.
Candelaria gave up a bouncing single over Karros on the first
pitch.  He in turn was relieved by Jay Howell, who must have been
inspired by McDowell and Gott the night before.  Howell got one
out, then gave up a sharp single by Bagwell that scored the tying
and winning runs.

Doug Jones came on to get yet another save for the Astros.  After
retiring Awfulman and Butler with ease, he walked Harris then
struck out Karros, who was trying to win it with one swing of the bat.

Candelaria made just one pitch and took the loss.  Mark Portugal got the
win in relief.  In case you missed it, the Reds beat the Giants and
the Padres beat the slumping Braves, just to make things a bit more
interesting in the NL West.

						BleedsDodgerBlue

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: dave@snitor.sni.ca (Dave Till)
Subject: Re: Would I rather play Zosky than Griffin?
Organization: What Is It With These #$%@$$@ Cheeseheads, Anyway?
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 14:13:14 GMT

In article <Bv3KuC.8B6@zoo.toronto.edu> rising@zoo.toronto.edu (Jim Rising) writes:
>Yes.  He's got a cannon for an arm; Griffin can barely get it
>to first (he is said to have a sore arm).  I havn't seen enough
>of either to judge, but this year Griffin's range seems to be
>down; I doubt that Zosky's is any worse.  Zosky made a lot of
>errors at Syracuse, but I'd take my chances.  The bats are essentially
>irrelevant, but it is hard to believe that Zosky could be as bad!

Here's why I don't want Eddie Zosky in the lineup:

In a game this past week, Cito pinch-hit for Griffin, and Zosky went in
as the defensive replacement at short.  It was a close game.  With
Eichhorn pitching and a runner on first, the batter hit a routine ground
ball to short.  Zosky scooped up the ball and threw it... into right
field.  Everybody safe, rally prolonged.

Eddie Zosky just doesn't have enough poise or experience to be able to handle
a tough defensive position in the middle of a tight pennant race.
(He threw balls away all the time in spring training, so this isn't just
a snap judgement on a sample size of one.  Maybe three or four.  :-))
Alfredo Griffin has approximately 100000 offensive and defensive weaknesses,
but I'd rather see him in there than Zosky.

[There's lots of people I'd rather see in there than Griffin, of course,
but the Jays just don't have any of those people.  The Jays minor league
system is strong at almost every position, but has no SS prospects coming
up that I know of (other than Zosky).]

--Dave "unable to whammy the Brewers pitching staff from this distance" Till
e-mail path:  dave@silver.sni.ca or dave@snitor.uucp
(or try dwtill@watyew.waterloo.edu)
From: genetic+@pitt.edu (Dr. Dave)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: NL ROY: More Fuel for Debate
Date: 28 Sep 92 19:04:50 GMT
Organization: Department of Industrial Engineering

Thus spake claudius@leland.stanford.edu (Nelson Lu):

>According to my measure of expected runs above replacement level, here are the
>top 10 NL rookie position players...  

Sorry, Nelson, but I insist that your method is nonsense.  I tried to say
that before, more politely, but you didn't respond.

RC/27 refers to what an idealized team of 9 copies of these players would
do.  There is NO WAY, none, to translate those numbers into estimates of
their actual value as one of nine players in a real lineup, even a hypothetical
average one.  Ditto for an alleged "replacement level" player.  You can't just
subtract one player's RC/27 from another's to find the difference, because
RC/27's aren't additive.

Extreme example:  consider two players, me and Frank Thomas, in the context
of Gary Huckabay's SVBL league.  Frank would have an RC/27 of about 80, while
I would have an RC/27 of about 0.1.  However, if you consider what happens
when you replace Huckabay with me or Frank, this alleged 80 run difference
per game vanishes.  The Cephalopods-with-Frank score 15 runs per game, while
the Cephalopods-with-Tate score 4 or 5 runs per game.  (Sorry about that,
Huck.)  RC/27 is all but unrelated to actual marginal contribution to a real
lineup.  This is why MLVs were invented.  The RC/27 difference drastically
overestimates the actual lineup-effect difference, for players noticeably far
from the mean in RC/27.  As a result, using this difference, even in normalized
form and scaled by plate appearances, is nonsense.


-- 
       David Tate        |"Out of the dugout endlessly swinging,
 dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu | Out of the manager's throat, the sound fundamentals,
 Prof. of Story Problems | Out of the six-month season..."            
 Member ORSA, TIMS, SABR | 	Walt "Lefty" Whitman
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: tedward@cs.cornell.edu (Edward [Ted] Fischer)
Subject: Re: Lead off walks....
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 23:07:41 GMT

In article <1992Oct3.142030.1346@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> z_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
>
>	*This* is the person that line was meant for.

Well, then at least have the guts to name names.  *I* knew it was
meant for me, but you probably mislead a few of the innocent
bystanders.

>Nope, you didn't hurt my feelings. I simply refuse to listen to anyone
>who is rude and arrogant, regardless of who is correct.

A sensible attitude.  If you don't like somebody, stick your fingers
in your ears and yell "I'M NOT LISTENING" at the top of your lungs.
Why don't you add me to your kill file too?  Please?

I believe I ignored your first post.  (Knew *somebody* would correct
you.)  And didn't I respond by e-mail to the second with something
like: "You are wrong.  It is the gambler's fallacy.  Give it up."  I
don't remember the exact wording, but I don't think I was particularly
rude.  If that is being arrogant and rude, I certainly don't apologize
for it.

My later posts and replies were *quite* arrogant, rude, and
condescending.  But you are a pig-headed idiot who doesn't understand
third grade math.  Not to mention that I was rather surprised when you
took offense at that first letter.  (Do you blow up at *everybody* who
corrects you in absolute terms?)

>If you are wrong, ignoring you doesn't matter, and if you are right,
>agreeing with you will only lead you to continue your crass,
>small-minded attacks on others, since you will only get more self-righteous.

Impossible.  I'm already as arrogant as I can get.  Though I have been
known to change my mind on occasion when I *was* wrong.  I think you
took offense at my tone.  I didn't say "I think you are wrong", or
"You might be wrong".  I said "You are wrong".  And you were wrong.  I
didn't "think" it, I *knew* it.  I don't often state in such flat-out
terms that I am right unless I *am* right.

>Crude persons do not deserve to be listened to

No, you aren't crude.  Just piggishly stubborn.  It's okay to be wrong
occasionally.  Happens to all of us.  It isn't generally considered an
insult to point that out.  And I think you overreacted to a
not-particularly-offensive letter.

Of course, I might be mis-remembering what I wrote in that first letter.
Did you save a copy?  Do you care to edify the group as to its contents?

Please grow up.  You'll save yourself a lot of headaches if you don't
take everything as a personal attack.

-Valentine
-- 
Make outs, not walks!					tedward@cs.cornell.edu
Clemens four Cy Young!
From: scordova@epas.utoronto.ca (Stephen Cordova)
Subject: Re: minnie minoso
Organization: University of Toronto - EPAS
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 21:40:32 GMT
Keywords: minnie minoso
From: v103pye8@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (THE DARK KNIGHT)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Wanted tix for Toronto playoffs
Date: 4 Oct 92 16:20:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41


If anyone knows of someone who would like to get rid of some tickets
for the first two games in Toronto, I am very INTERESTED! These are my two 
favorite teams and I want to see them BAD. so please mail me any info 
on how I can get to see the games

Thanks,

Bruce Wappman

v103pye8@ubvms.buffalo.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: fester@island.COM (Mike Fester)
Subject: Pena/backup catchers
Organization: /usr/local/rn/organization
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 16:08:16 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.182824.24911@leland.Stanford.EDU> claudius@leland.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu) writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.145516.2105@island.COM> fester@island.COM (Mike Fester) writes:
>
>>No doubt, the Angels would have started him if they felt he could have handled
>>the catching duties full-time; their rotation is horrible. BTW, Parrish does
>>occasional catching duty with the Mariners, in spite of having a better bat
>>than Valle. Looks like a backup player, Nelson.

>Just because a player is *used* as a backup player doesn't mean that he should
>be one.  Tony Phillips was used for most of his career as a backup player.
>That doesn't mean that he should be one.

And he wasn't huret very often, was he? In the current thread, we are discussing
why it would not have been reasonable to pick up Parrish/Carter to replace 
Pena.

>You said that you didn't use the word "should"; perhaps you didn't, but
>you implied so, by calling Parrish a "backup player."

Right, and I pointed out his history of recent injury and I do so again here.

>The Mariners are starting Valle because Valle *is* a better catcher than
>Parrish.  His defensive values are more than enough to compensate for the
>offensive differences between him and Parrish, which is actually not that big.
>
>For Pena, though, it's a different question.  And same for Orton.

So far so good. Now, Parrish has been injured quite a bit in recent years, and
he is OLDER than Pena (by a year; 35). Nothing there indicates to me he is 
capable of being a full-time catcher anymore. Carter is older than either.

>>>And no, just because a player starts is not a proof that the player is a
>>>better player.  Otherwise, Alfredo Griffin would be a great player in '88.
>>
>>Again, you're arguing against your own words. I never called Griffin a great 
>>player. I will say he was contributing.
>
>I didn't say that you called Griffin a great player.  I am merely using him as
>an example.  The fact that Griffin played everyday for the Dodgers in '88
>doesn't mean that he was a good player that year or even that he was the best
>shortstop the Dodgers had; it only said that the Dodgers *thought* that he was
>the best shortstop they had.

Actually, he probably was the best SS the Dodgers had. They haven't had a 
good SS in years.

Mike
-- 
Disclaimer - I'm only doing what the little voices tell me to do. 
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball