HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dfl@math.wayne.edu (David Frohardt-Lane)
Subject: Re: The Monthly Cecil Fielder Thread
Organization: Wayne State University Math Department, Detroit
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 13:21:27 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.174435.3715@island.COM> fester@island.COM (Mike Fester) writes:
>>We have reached agreement!  The point of disagreement is that you 
>>contend that Fielder is substantially responsible for the runs, and
>>thf (with lots of agreement by daves and dave-wanna-bes) says
>>that Tettleton, Fryman, Phillips and Whitaker on the whole contributed
>		 ^^^^^^
>>more.  Fielder just got more of the accounting entries called RBIs.
>
>How did a guy with lower OBP *AND* lower SLG contribute MORE to his team's 
>offense? In the BTW category, in 1990, Fielder had the highest SLG and OBP
>on the team. In '91, he had the highest SLG. This year, he STILL has the highest
>SLG of anyone who hasn't missed more than ~30 games (as of Aug 30).

Actually Fryman has a higher OBP than Fielder (.324 > .318), but the
main reason he is more valuable is that he plays about average defense at
a very difficult position, while Fielder plays lousy defense at a very
easy position.

By the way, if you're such a beleiver in OBP and SLG, why don't you
compare Fielder to Frank Thomas, Mark McGwire, Mickey Tettleton, etc.
There are about 25-30 regulars who have higher OPS's than Fielder.  And
of those 25-30, very few of them have as little defensive value, or run
as slow as Fielder.

--
David Frohardt-Lane   dfl@math.wayne.edu 
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Go Tigers, Lions, Pistons, Red Wings and Wolverines !!!!!!!!!!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Cost of a ballgame (was Re: Heartwarming Jose Story)
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 04:02:46 GMT

In article <5SEP199222314685@ahab.mit.edu> kettler@ahab.mit.edu (KETTLER, THOMAS R.) writes:
>In article <24643@oasys.dt.navy.mil>, hambric@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Stephen Hambri writes...
>>Here's one to add to the Legend of Canseco.

>>I have two nephews who idolized (note past tense) Jose Canseco.  They
>>live in Toronto, and every time I'd visit, they'd show me their latest
>>Canseco baseball cards.  Last year, their Father took them to the Bay
>>area on a trip, where they attended an A's game.  The kids were ecstatic
>>about the chance to meet Jose.  Before the game, during warmups, Dad
>>worked the kids around the stadium so that they were within 20 feet
>>of their hero.  The oldest (about 10 at the time), adorned with an A's
>>cap and Canseco T-shirt, called out "Mr. Canseco, could we please have
>>your autograph?"  The reply:  "20 bucks and its yours."  I haven't heard
>>my nephews mention Jose since.

>>Some food for thought for Texans who take their kids to Rangers games:
>>be sure to bring some twenties to the ballyard.

>I'm curious. Have people started to include the cost of players' autographs in 
>how much it costs for a family of four to go to a baseball game? If not, then 
>$100 is too low and it will be closer to $200 for a couple autographs. Note: I 
>say this with indignation at what is going on now.

Indignation or no, isn't it odd that nobody's mentioned yet that Canseco
was probably *busy* at the time?  If he was warming up, then that wa no 
time for an autograph.  He may have said 'no' in the wrong way, but 'no'
is, imho, the correct answer unless he's just standing around doing nothing.

Some players like to focus before a game.  If they get into signing
autographs, that can take up a lot of time -- and if they don't get
everyone, their reputation *still* suffers.  

Roger


Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: chico@athena.mit.edu (Thomas A Weston)
Subject: The Next Commissione
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 23:45:53 GMT

The way I see it, the man baseball needs is someone who can work well with
owners, players and fans.  

There is one man qualified for this critical job at this critical time.  He has
identical relationships with all three important groups.  The owners universally
respect and admire him, listening to his advice and often asking for his aid. 
The players always felt that he was on their side in contract negotiations, ready
to give them the money that they deserved.  And the fans loved his unique
promotions and colorful ideas.

I speak, of course, of Charlie Finley.

Either him or Bo Shembechler.

Take your pick.

  ________________      __      ______________
 /_______________/|    /_/|    /_____________/|  San Francisco 49ers
|                ||   |  ||   |              ||  Los Angeles Lakers
|    __     __   ||   |  ||   |_____    _____|/  Los Angeles Dodgers
|  ||  |  ||  |  ||   |  ||         |  ||        Penn State Nittany Lions
|  ||  |  ||  |  ||   |  ||         |  ||    
|  ||  |  ||  |  ||   |  ||         |  ||     "Joe just said that he'd throw
|  ||  |  ||  |  ||   |  ||         |  ||      the ball and that I should 
|  ||  |  ||  |  ||   |  ||         |  ||      go out and get it."
|  ||  |  ||  |  ||   |  ||         |  ||                     - Jerry Rice
|  ||  |  ||  |  ||   |  ||         |  || 
|  ||  |  ||  |  ||   |  ||         |  || 
|__|/  |__|/  |__|/   |__|/         |__|/      Thomas A. Weston

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: C Robert Claydon <cclaydon@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Subject: Juan Gonzales (40+ homers before age 23)
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 06:20:13 GMT
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]

Interesting note on the whole Juan Gonzales being "the next Babe Ruth"...

A UPI report listed the other players who have hit 40+ homers before turning 
23, and while there are some impressive players, I don't think any are in the 
top five of all-time home runs.  From memory, they are:

Eddie Matthews (twice), Joe Dimaggio, Johnny Bench and one other (sorry, I 
forget! :-)

Anyway, while Matthews topped 500 HR, and Bench petered out largely because of 
the wear and tear of catching, I don't think you could say any of these guys 
were a serious threat to pass 700 (or even 600) HR lifetime...

Rob
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: rstimets@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (robert and stimets)
Subject: Re: Gary Sheffield
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 18:06:09 GMT

In article <92259.110652KAP118@psuvm.psu.edu> KAP118@psuvm.psu.edu (Kevin Polcovich) writes:
>How many of you think Sheffield has a good, if not great shot of the Triple
>Crown?  Nothing has been mentioned on the Net at least nothing I have seen.
>If anyone has any opinion RE: it or drop me a line.  Also I have some of his
>Upper Deck and Leaf rookies for sale if interested.  Also some authentic
>game-worn items by him.He will definately be a strong force to be reckoned
>with. Period.
>
Would be great if he could convince McGriff to stop hitting all those darned
home runs.

RStimets
From: grabiner@math.harvard.edu (David Grabiner)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: J. Gonzales All-time HR King (& Bill James' Favorite Toy)
Date: 4 Sep 92 22:26:51 GMT
Article-I.D.: zariski.GRABINER.92Sep4182741
Organization: Harvard University Dept. of Mathematics
In-reply-to: bobhurt@carson.u.washington.edu's message of 3 Sep 92 15:00:10 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.150010.26969@u.washington.edu>, Bob Hurt writes:

> I pulled out the 1986 Baseball Abstract and applied The Favorite Toy
> to Juan Gonzalez, looking for his chances of hitting 500 HRs and 
> breaking Aaron's HR record (I.E., hitting 756 HRs).

The Favorite Toy does not work well for very young players, particularly
for home-run totals.  It gives a player a 10% chance of maintaining his
current production through age 40.  For a player who is in his prime at
27, or on the way down at 33, this makes sense.  But a player who is 22
could well hit many more home runs next year than this year.

Brock2 overestimates a player's chance of reaching a goal, because it
assumes an uninterrupted career.  Usually, if a veteran projects to 3000
hits or 500 homers, The Favorite Toy will give him a 30% chance of
reaching that goal.

--
David Grabiner, grabiner@zariski.harvard.edu
"We are sorry, but the number you have dialed is imaginary."
"Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and try again."
Disclaimer: I speak for no one and no one speaks for me.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: thornley@deca.cs.umn.edu (David H. Thornley)
Subject: Re: Times on Base: all-time records and Frank Thomas
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, CSci dept.
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 21:06:49 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.192119.4583@Princeton.EDU> roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:
>In article <BuBoxL.IuA@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> rstimets@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (robert and stimets) writes:
>>In article <BuA3o5.8Bn@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jhg8680@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Jon  Hamkins) writes:
>>>Yes, in that case, you do help your team.  In fact, you even slightly
>>>help the number of expected runs in the inning.  Reposting Sherri's
>>>data from May, here's the list of expected runs in various situations:
>>>
>>>                  Outs
>>>Runners       0     1    2
>>>None        .454  .249 .095
>>>1st         .783  .478 .209
>>>2nd        1.068  .699 .348
>>>3rd        1.277  .897 .382
>>>1st,2nd    1.380  .888 .457
>>>1st,3rd    1.639 1.088 .494
>>>2nd,3rd    1.946 1.371 .661
>>>Full       2.254 1.546 .798
>>>
>>[Interesting list - why is loading the bases better than runners on
>> 2nd and 3rd, particularly with the force-out/DP possibilities with
>> one or two outs?]
>
>With any number of outs, a homer or triple scores an extra run, and a 
>double usually does, too.  That'swhere the difference of .13 to .31 runs
>comes from.  The force-out/dp possibility keeps the numbers low with
>one out.
>
Also, these are expected runs until the end of the inning.  If the bases
are loaded, and the next batter gets on base, the guy who had been on
first is now in scoring position.

>>[Why do managers intentionally walk batters if it's counterproductive?]
>
>a) You're right; it's often a bad play.  
>
>b) However, this table doesn't always apply.  In some cases, one needs
>a table that gives p(score at least one run).  IBB can increase the 
>chance of getting out of the inning unscathed, even though E(runs)
>increases.
>
Also, this is a table of average values, and some situations are definitely
not average.  For example, the difference between 3rd and 1st&3rd with
one out is 0.191 on the average, but it might be worthwhile to walk a good
hitter with man on 3rd to pitch to a weak one, particularly if the good
hitter is a slow fly-ball hitter and the weak one is a slow groun-ball hitter.
Of course, you have to consider the effects on the next inning, so it might
be worthwhile to pitch to the #8 hitter with two outs rather than walk
him to face the pitcher, because if you walk him the pitcher won't lead
off the next inning.

David Thornley
"Netters judge a fan on the stats that guide him" - Niccolo Machiavelli
From: mspede@atlas.nafb.trw.com
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: re: The Monthly Cecil Fielder Thread
Date: 9 Sep 92 13:46:56 PST

In article <1992Sep9.145836.1347@island.COM>, fester@island.COM (Mike Fester) writes:
> Then don't.
> 
> In article <1992Sep3.225329.15167@panix.com> spira@panix.com (Greg "Sarcasm Is A Way Of Life" Spira) writes:
>>In <1992Sep3.180423.4371@island.COM> fester@island.COM (Mike Fester) writes:
>>
>>>In article <1992Sep1.164007.5432@panix.com> spira@panix.com (Greg "Sarcasm Is A Way Of Life" Spira) writes:
>>
>>Well, Dawson for instance.  The point, of course, is not that players who
>>lead the league in RBIs aren't good players - it's just that RBIs aren't
>>particularly helpful in distinguishing between players.
> 
> Well, the TEAM gets runs out of them, and it's not at all certain that the
> player(s) hitting behind the guy are going to get the runs home, now is it?
> 
> As for "RBIs aren't particularly helpful in distinguishing between players"
> that is of course your opinion, but certainly subject to debate.
> 
  
  This has been debated for years (witnessed **continuously** by me since
  1990,  oops that's a different thread !) and I've been convinced....

  Great RBI totals =/=> Great Offensive Player  (note the NOT please)

  Mark Pede



Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: fester@island.COM (Mike Fester)
Subject: Re: <None>
Organization: /usr/local/rn/organization
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 17:03:36 GMT

In article <1265.2ab08511@atlas.nafb.trw.com> mspede@atlas.nafb.trw.com writes:
>In article <1992Sep11.142854.1195@island.COM>, fester@island.COM (Mike Fester) writes:
>  <previous discussion deleted>
>
>> I thought you were talking about the "mediots". In any event, Cecil did not
>> win the award, now did he? And you very vocally defended that choice. It
>> would seem you're saying, if there's a disagreement between you and them, THEY
>> are idiots, but if you agree, they again are idiots. YOU, however, remain a 
>> reasonable observer under all circumstances.
>> 
>> In any event, as mentioned before, take it up with Bill James; he spends a 
>> good deal of his Historical Abstract explaining WHY the MVP award works well
>> overall. I'd have to say I mostly agree.
>> 
>
>  We must be on different wavelengths, mike, but I just don't get what you're
> trying to say.
>  Suppose you have discussions with a coworker every day.  50% of the time, his
> opinions are irrelevant, obnoxious, trash (out in left field, so to speak) 
> and 50% of the time they are at least resonable.
>  Now *I* might call this guy an idiot, and he's still an idiot regardless of
> his current position.
>
>  How does this contradict the position that I "remain a resonable observer
> under all circumstances".

How does what you say distinguish from coworker's possible viewpoint that 
what YOU say is 50% "trash", and 50% of the time are "at least reasonable"?

In any event, this doesn't have much to do with baseball.

Mike
-- 
Disclaimer - I'm only doing what the little voices tell me to do. 
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: claudius@leland.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu)
Subject: RC/27 for RFs
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 21:36:57 GMT

NATIONAL LEAGUE			RC/27	"VALUE"
Larry Walker, Montreal		7.00	2.57
Tony Gwynn, San Diego		6.07	1.92
Felix Jose, St. Louis		5.99	1.52
David Justice, Atlanta		5.81	1.53
Andre Dawson, Chicago		5.79	1.52
Bobby Bonilla, New York		5.77	1.50
Paul O'Neill, Cincinnati	5.18	1.02
NL AVERAGE			4.97
Willie McGee, San Francisco	4.67	0.39
Wes Chamberlain, Phildelphia	4.54	0.19
Eric Anthony, Houston		4.50	0.36

AMERICAN LEAGUE
Danny Tartabull, New York	8.11	1.70
Tom Brunansky, Boston		6.58	1.34
Rob Deer, Detroit		6.48	1.50
Joe Carter, Toronto		6.06	1.64
Daryl Hamilton, Milwaukee	6.02	0.83
Jose Canseco, Texas		5.54	0.93
Ruben Sierra, Oakland		5.49	1.49
Joe Orsulak, Baltimore		5.48	0.90
Dante Bichette, Milwaukee	5.46	0.93
Jay Buhner, Seattle		5.16	1.15
Mark Whiten, Cleveland		5.14	1.06
AL AVERAGE			4.91
Pedro Munoz, Minnesota		4.40	0.31
Phil Plantier, Boston		4.35	0.18
Jim Eisenreich, Kansas City	3.86	-0.02
Dan Pasqua, Chicago		3.72	-0.09
Von Hayes, California		3.71	-0.11

===============================================================================
GO CALIFORNIA ANGELS!
===============================================================================
Nelson Lu (claudius@leland.stanford.edu)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: claudius@leland.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu)
Subject: Re: roy NL
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 92 02:05:58 GMT

In article <08rnq5m@lynx.unm.edu> kbos@carina.unm.edu (Kurt Bose "of Biscayzee") writes:
[I write]
>>This is one strike against Moises, although it is not as huge as you suggested.
>>Up to this Saturday, of Karros' 115 starts, he started 64 against RHP (55.7%).
>>By comparision, Alou started 38 of 71 starts vs. RHP (53.5%), and Sanders
>>started 42 of 62 starts vs. RHP (67.7%).  If platoon advantage were a concern,
>>you'd actually have to give Sanders more credit than Karros.

I checked again, and found that I made a mental mistake.  Sanders started 42 of
*82* games vs. RHP (51.2%), so yes, I'd have to give Karros a bit of credit,
but only a bit.

>Well, that isn't quite what I was asking.  I'll put it another way.  Is 100% 
>of a player 70% of the time better or worse than 70% of that player for 162
>games?  How do we find the correct value tradeoff between talent level and
>durability (or dependability or whatever)?  

I'd say...

Let RL stand for Replacement Level, and PV stand for the player's stats at
100%...

I'd say the comparison is between

(PV - RL) * .70 and ((.70 * PV) - RL).

If we say that replacement level is 10% below average (of RC/27), then the
replacement level of 1Bs would be 4.81, while the replacement level of CFs
would be 4.68.  (NL average for CFs is higher than AL average for CFs, and
NL average for 1Bs is about the same as the AL average for 1Bs, but let's leave
that for the moment).

Karros, having played in 117 of 128 games, would thus get a "value" of:

(4.93 (his RC/27) - 4.81) * (117/128) = 0.11

Sanders would get:

(6.58 - 4.68) * (91/128) = 1.35

A rather big difference.

Even if you use starts, Karros is not helped much:

Karros:	(4.93 - 4.81) * (110/128) = 0.10
Sanders: (6.58 - 4.68) * (65/128) + (6.58 - 4.13 (LF)) * (21/128) = 1.37.

>silly.  When we argued about Murray, there was clearly a better choice in
>Magadan.  With Karros, there's not that kind of an option.  What criterion is
>used to determine ROY, anyway?  Best numbers?  Leadership?  Value to team? IQ?

Hmmm.  I thought that it's like MVP, i. e., most valuable rookie.

And how many teams would have a replacment 1B as bad as Benzinger anyway?  But
even when using Benzinger, you still lose less than if you use Martinez instead
of Sanders.

And don't tell me Butch Henry would be your next choice for ROY just because
he's been in the rotation for the whole year.

===============================================================================
GO CALIFORNIA ANGELS!
===============================================================================
Nelson Lu (claudius@leland.stanford.edu)
From: hambric@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Stephen Hambric)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Ripken Watch Replaces Galarraga Watch
Date: 10 Sep 92 16:23:00 GMT
Reply-To: hambric@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Stephen Hambric)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In rec.sport.baseball, hbrooks@uiatma.atmos.uiuc.edu (Harold_Brooks) writes:

>Cal Ripken   April-August   .249 BA  .355 SLG  .329 OBA
>Cal Ripken (1 Sep.- 9 Sep.) .152 BA  .182 SLG  .222 OBA

And he's now batting cleanup for the Woes  >|-<

Steve Hambric (hambric@oasys.dt.navy.mil)
From: tml@druhi.ATT.COM (Tim Larison)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Rockies/Mets opener
Date: 4 Sep 92 13:22:51 GMT
Distribution: rec

The Denver papers say this morning that the Colorado Rockies will
open next year in New York against the Mets on April 6 (according
to the proposed schedule).  Following the Mets series, the Rockies
will host Montreal for their first home series.

The proposed schedule has a good chance of being adopted because
it was designed so that the Giants could be in either St. Pete
or San Fran.   The schedule also features a 13/12 format like
the American League - 13 games vs. teams in the same division and
12 vs teams in the other division.

                          Tim Larison  att!druhi!tml 

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: fester@island.COM (Mike Fester)
Subject: Re: The Monthly Cecil Fielder Thread
Organization: /usr/local/rn/organization
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 15:18:28 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.234417.20443@news2.cis.umn.edu> thornley@milli.cs.umn.edu (David H. Thornley) writes:
>In article <1992Sep9.150945.1751@island.COM> fester@island.COM (Mike Fester) writes:
>>
>>And next time, please read more carefully; I pretty clearly wrote this in 
>>regard to the Tiger offense, as seen by "How did a guy with lower OBP *AND* 
>>lower SLG contribute MORE to his team's offense?" Clearer now?
>>
>Depends on how you define "contribute", doesn't it?  How about the following
>thought experiments:  Shoot Travis Fryman, or shoot Cecil Fielder.  See
>the effects on Detroit's offense.  We can simulate the effects in several
>ways.  I think you'll find that shooting Fryman has more of an effect than
>shooting Fielder, and therefore I consider it a reasonable statement that
>Fryman contributes more than Fielder to the Tiger's offense.

Then plug in Phillips (or next year, Trammmell) in to either the SS (in 
Fryman's case) or 1B (in Fielder's case). Trammell has been a little better
offensive player than Fryman, worse than Cecil. Looks to me like the Tigers' 
O would suffer more if they lose Fielder.

Mike


-- 
Disclaimer - I'm only doing what the little voices tell me to do. 
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: bharat@cs.uiuc.edu (R. Bharat Rao)
Subject: Re: Dodgers Outdo Themselves -- Seven Errors!
Reply-To: bharat@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 15:01:37 GMT

pcaster@mizar.usc.edu (Dodger) writes:
>The Dodgers made a team high 7 errors last night, 3 by Jose
>Offerman.  Candiotti was the principal victim of the
>lack of defense, although he also allowed a lot of hits
>and helped the Giants with a couple of walks in the second
>as well.  The Giants opened up a commanding lead and Larry
>Carter cruised for 7 innings to earn his first victory.

Although I do not watch the Dodgers, I caught the lowlights of this
game on ESPN.  It seemed to be that many of the errors were of the
type when the ball was in the dirt and the first baseman Eric Karros
was unable to come up with it.  Now, while all 3 of the throws were
bad, it appeared atht I would expect a major league first baseman to
come up with 1 or 2 of them if not all 3.  I wonder, how many of poor
Offerman's 40 errors are due to Karros being unable to come up with
the ball that handcuffs.  Now it may be the case, that the plays I saw
were an abberation and Karros normally is adept at scooping those
balls up -- as I said, I usually never catch the Dodgers... or maybe,
I am spoiled by Mark Grace, who routinely picks up those throws in 
the dirt (fewer, now that Dunston isn't gunning those 90 mph
sliders at his feet:-).

>					Dodger

Darn those #$*&^ Cubs; for a while there they actually looked like they
may make a semblance of a run; but they plopped out when their
relievers reverted to pre-1992 form (and get a club LeFever, when
you closer gets his hard 2 days in a row after having pitched 6 times
in the last 8 days, maybe you ought to rest him for 3-4 days).
--
R. Bharat Rao                          E-mail: bharat@cs.uiuc.edu 
AI Group, Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology
405 N. Mathews, Urbana, IL 61801  (217)-244-1263 (O) 337-6498(H)
Electrical & Computer Engineering, University of Illinois, Urbana
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: jcohen@sco.COM (Jon Cohen)
Subject: Prize Money for Playoffs, WS?
Organization: The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 19:27:50 GMT
Followup-To: rec.sport.baseball
Keywords: prize money



Does anyone know if MLB still gives special bonus money
to all players on teams that come in second, win their
divisions, win the playoffs, win the world series?

What are the prizes, and how much do the players get?

As a kid, I remember lots of discussion about "World Series
Shares" etc., but I don't hear much about these prizes
anymore. I remember in 1964 or 1965 being amazed by the
incredibly huge $10,000! prizes given to the World Series
Winners. That's about three at bats for Bobby Bonilla today,
providing he doesn't have a hangnail or runny nose.

**********