HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell)
Subject: Re: Lead off walks....
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 17:40:14 GMT

In article <1992Oct3.141417.1345@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> z_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
>In article <1992Oct2.201742.28863@Princeton.EDU>, roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
>> In article <1992Oct2.130542.1330@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> z_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
>>>	Yes, I did say this, but I was looking at it from the *start* of the
>>>inning, not *after* the first batter reached base. This ain't the gambler's
>>>fallacy (though it is largely irrelevant). From the start of an inning, there
>>>is a slightly better chance of a team scoring if the first runner reaches
>>>via walk than hit, 
>> 
>> WHOA!  There's your conditional probability right there: the "if."
>> Which means that you're *not* taking it from the start of the inning;
>
>	I'll admit to making a big logical mistake, but I still don't think it
>was the gambler's falalcy.

Then what do you think the gambler's fallacy is?  I assure you as
an innocent bystander that you committed it.

>>>not upset about knowing that. What does irk me is that you and the other stat
>>>heads are so damned rude to anyone who doesn't fall down and kiss your feet.

I've followed this thread.  You posted a mistake.  You were corrected.
You stubbornly held to the original mistake.  After this goes back and
forth three times, you lash out like this.  Who's being rude?  You appear
to have thrown out the first insult in this thread. 
-- 
ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
ajax crypto-analyzer -- warning! remove all chicken bones first
From: doctor8@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu (Jason Abner Miller)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: dates wanted
Date: 5 Oct 92 15:43:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: jhuvms.5OCT199210433128
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University - HCF
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Oct5.131948.29202@cm.cf.ac.uk>, G.R.Price@cm.cf.ac.uk (G R Price) writes...
> 
>British TV has actually started showing some baseball
> 
>OK its in the middle of the night and only an hour a week, but
>its a start
> 
>Last week we had highlights of Cone's debut (a loss to the Brewers
>7-2) What date was this played roughly ?  I really want to know how 
>far behind his coverage is.  There is a Red Sox - A's game coming
>up next week
> 
>Thanks in advance
From: jwc@netxcom.netx.com (Jeff Comer)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Inevitable changes
Date: 2 Oct 92 15:27:06 GMT
Organization: The Chaos Bobs

In article <17700@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> the Huckster writes:
>How about this:
>	West          Midwest         South          East
>      California      Chicago         Atlanta      New York
>      Oakland         St. Louis       Tampa        New York
>      San Diego       Kansas City     Miami        Boston
>      Seattle         Minnesota       New Orleans  Pittsburgh
>      Portland        Cincinnati      Charlotte    Philadelphia
>      Chicago (AL)    Cleveland       Houston      Toronto
>      Los Angeles     Detroit         Texas        Montreal
>      Bay Area II     Milwaukee       Phoenix      Baltimore

Say whaaaaaat!? Portland, New Orleans, Phoenix, and (gag!) Charlotte(!),
plus a second Bay Area team, and no SENATORS!?!?! And what happened to
the Rockies? Have they folded already? Put the Senators in the south, 
away from those damn Yankee teams. 

Other than the glaring omission of baseball in the Nation's Capital, I
like the N/S/E/W arrangement. For one thing, you would create some cross-
town rivalries that have never happened (NY/NY), and some cross-state
ones as well (CLE/CIN). But it would of course mean merging the AL and
NL, something that I think will never happen. Also, getting something like
this "approved" by TV (an anathema to me) without getting pressure for an
expanded playoff format would be hard.

-JC
The [next to the] last Senators fan.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: hhenderson@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: god, i'm immature
Organization: Clark University
Date: 30 SEP 92 17:51:04 GMT

>however, i was dissapointed to find that there has never been a
>"shithead" who played major league baseball.

I beg to differ, sir, there are shitheads on every major league
roster, and have been since the game was invented.  I think you
mean "there has never been a player who willingly accepted the
nickname 'Shithead'."

While you're looking through the encyclopedia, can you keep an
eye out for palindromic names -- not last names, but a combination
of first and last, creating a palindrome.  I don't think any
exist, but it's been the subject of discussion in my household.
We're boring people.

The palindromic last names are: Harrah, Salas, and Otto.  Now if we
can only convince Dave Otto to name his kid Otto B. Otto, or something
like that,  we'll be on the right track.

Heather
HHENDERSON@vax.clarku.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: claudius@leland.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu)
Subject: RC/27 for Cs
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 21:44:35 GMT

				RC/27	VALUE
Chris Hoiles, Baltimore		8.17	40.4
Darren Daulton, Philadelphia	8.15	61.8
Don Slaught, Pittsburgh		7.80	26.7
Mickey Tettleton, Detroit	6.57	50.3
Terry Steinbach, Oakland	5.61	28.8
Brian Harper, Minnesota		5.43	28.9
Rick Wilkins, Chicago (NL)	5.00	11.1
Joe Oliver, Cincinnati		4.79	21.8
Mike LaValliere, Pittsburgh	4.70	13.1
Mike Macfarlane, Kansas City	4.24	12.6
Pat Borders, Toronto		4.19	14.7
Matt Nokes, New York (AL)	4.15	11.5
Damon Berryhill, Atlanta	4.09	8.1
Jeff Tackett, Baltimore		4.06	4.9
AVERAGE				4.03
Ivan Rodriguez, Texas		4.03	10.8
Dave Valle, Seattle		3.99	6.7
Greg Olson, Atlanta		3.98	8.1
B. J. Surhoff, Milwaukee	3.96	11.6
Benito Santiago, San Diego	3.96	10.0
Ron Karkovice, Chicago (AL)	3.95	8.0
Tom Pagnozzi, St. Louis		3.93	11.6
Kirt Manwaring, San Francisco	3.69	6.2
Joe Girardi, Chicago (NL)	3.63	4.4
Eddie Taubensee, Houston	3.57	4.2
Gary Carter, Montreal		3.48	3.7
Sandy Alomar, Cleveland		3.30	2.3
Tony Pena, Boston		3.14	1.2
Mike Scioscia, Los Angeles	2.97	-0.5
Darrin Fletcher, Montreal	2.90	-0.7
Todd Hundley, New York (NL)	2.87	-1.4
Junior Ortiz, Cleveland		2.64	-2.3
Scott Servais, Houston		2.30	-4.1

===============================================================================
GO CALIFORNIA ANGELS!
===============================================================================
Nelson Lu (claudius@leland.stanford.edu)
From: spira@panix.com (Greg "Sarcasm Is A Way Of Life" Spira)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Elias/STATS projections
Date: 29 Sep 92 16:22:29 GMT
Organization: Boo!

In <1992Sep29.053759.19610@cs.cornell.edu> tedward@cs.cornell.edu (Edward [Ted] Fischer) writes:

>In article <92272.184124RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu> <RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu> writes:
>>re: stats 57 points off, elias 82 points off (or whatever).
>>
>>i wouldn't say "stats' predictions are better than elias' predictions,"
>>i would say "stats' predictions and elias' predictions are both bullshit."

>I dunno.  An average error of 57 points of OPS seems rather good to me.

Also, all the players I tested had less than one year of major league
experience, so in some cases (even with the minor league stats) there
just wasn't all that much data to base the projections on.  I'm sure the
accuracy level is higher for players whom we have years and years of data
on.

By the way, Valentine, you'll be thrilled to know that the two most off
projections in the group of players I tested were for (surprise!) Phil
Plantier and Mo Vaughn.

Greg 
-- 
  spira@panix.com       "The one-O delivery to Fisk.  He swings.  Long drive,  
 cmcl2!panix!spira      left field!  If it stays fair, it's gone!  Home Run!"  
158-17 Riverside Dr.                     Ned Martin, 10/22/75   
Whitestone NY 11357          (Insert your favorite baseball moment here) 
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: hbrooks@uiatma.atmos.uiuc.edu (Harold_Brooks)
Subject: Re: R.S.BB FAQ V1.22 (9/25/92)
Organization: NSSL
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 13:39:54 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.014709.20685@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca> 91287041@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Roger Maynard) writes:
>In <0g!p=3b@lynx.unm.edu> kbos@carina.unm.edu (Kurt "Some Guy" Bose) writes:
>
>
>>      Also, the group dynamics here are interesting.  Several of the fans
>>here are interested in sabermetrics, a term coined to describe the study of
>>baseball statistics.  This group includes many of the more prominent posters
>
>What is the purpose of this sentence?  Every poster on this net is equally
>"prominent".  Wipe the brown stuff off your nose Kurt...

Count the number of posts people make.  Dave(s), Sherri, Nelson, Gary, etc. 
post a lot more than, say, Neal Traven.  Your obnoxious last sentence doesn't
warrant the dignity of a reply.
> 
>>are welcome to post, note that we've heard most of it before.  Just to set
>>the record straight, the more numbers-minded folk are just as knowledgeable
>>about the game as their old-school counterparts, watch as many games, in some
>>cases even play the game at competitive levels.  Many of them can converse
>
>Hardly.  Certainly some of them are more so.  But from what I can see the
>vast majority of so-called "statheads" don't get any closer to the game
>than the morning newspaper.

I'm glad that I'm not in that 'vast majority' since to the best of my 
knowledge I've never seen you in person, nor you me.  Thus, from what you
'can see', you have no earthly idea how close I get 'to the game'.  If you
have been running around the continent following people around to see how
close 'to the game' they get, I congratulate you on your stealth, but it
would have been easier and cheaper to ask, or at the very least, introduce
yourself to your quarry.

>
>>as easily about swings and mechanics as they can about DA and OPS*.  For the
>>most part, they are just using their skills to enjoy and understand the game
>>as much as people who don't stare at the Sunday paper with a calculator in
>>hand.  Who knows?  They might even be able to do a good job managing a team.
>>(Other "stat-heads" include Dave Johnson, Tony LaRussa, Earl Weaver, and 
>>Branch Rickey.)
>
>Now you have gone beyond the realm of mildly amusing.  This is truly hilarious.

What is 'truly hilarious'?  Your reply?  Or the assertion that Dave Johnson, 
Tony LaRussa, Earl Weaver, and Branch Rickey should be counted among the 
'stat-heads' of the world?  Or what?

Harold
-- 
Harold Brooks                    hbrooks@uiatma.atmos.uiuc.edu
National Severe Storms Laboratory/CIMMS (Norman, OK)
Cal Ripken   April-August   .248 BA  .354 SLG  .328 OBA
Cal Ripken (1 Sep.-30 Sep.) .245 BA  .336 SLG  .278 OBA
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Why bother to watch the World Series?
From: guilford@otago.ac.nz
Date: 5 Oct 92 15:06:16 +1300
Organization: University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand

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:

>>Of all the major sports in the United States, major league baseball
>>has the most illogical and capricious system of determining home
>>field advantage in the playoffs.  Since 1987, starting with the
>>Twins, the team with both the home field advantage in the LCS and
>>the World Series has won the championship.  

>>Without even noticing what the teams did this season, all I have to
>>know is that the Braves won their division in order for me to predict
>>with confidence that they will win the World Series.  

> This system wouldn't have worked very well for most years.  In fact, it
> would have failed to predict the correct winner 15 times out of 23 times.
> Yes, it would have predicted the last 5 in a row.  But it would have had a
> stretch from 1971 to 1984 where it failed to predict the correct winner a
> single time.

But it is interesting that the Western teams either get double home 
advantage or neither, while the Eastern ones get either home
advantage in the LCS and not in the WS, or vice versa.  This does seem
like it gives the West a (very) slight advantage in winning the WS....

As for the original post, well, I'm glad I waited until the last minute
before filling out my "post of the year" ballot.

Bill Guilford
Organization: Sophomore, Electrical and Computer Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Date: Fri,  2 Oct 1992 10:01:22 -0400 
From: Eric Alva Dunmire <ed19+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: PIRATES AGIAIN!!!
	<1992Oct1.024500.6147@ncsu.edu>

>I'm glad that someone other than myself had confidence in the 
>supposedly washed-up Bucs.  It seemed that I was the only one 
>this year that did not think the Mets were invincible.  Buying 
>a team of high-priced free agents never works.  Thank goodness
>Barry learned that from Bobby's incredible mistake.  Maybe he'll
>be around for a fourth straight next year!!!!!!!
> 
>The Braves better watch out.  Bonds has made a committment to winning
>and this will be the year he breaks out of his NLCS slump and 
>shows America why he is by far the best player in baseball.
> 
>Pittsburgh Pirates--1992 World Series Champions!


I AGREE  100%

My prediction for next year

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.
From: genetic+@pitt.edu (Dr. Dave)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: How silly can the mediots get?
Date: 29 Sep 92 17:41:06 GMT
Organization: Department of Industrial Engineering

Thus spake niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent):

>Brady Anderson is the first American Leaguer to hit 20 HR, drive in 75
>runs, and steal 50 bases in the same season.
 
>This has got to be one of the most meaningless compilations ever, but it
>is sort of interesting -- it's really tough to achieve these numbers.
>If you've got that much speed, you're usually batting #1, which makes it
>hard to drive in runs.  If you've got that much power, you're in the
>middle of the lineup, where stealing isn't usually an option. 

Here's where Johnny Oates's "Magical Mystery Lineup Tour" comes in.  Brady,
by batting leadoff, actually had most of the best OBP guys on the team 
batting just ahead of him:  Gomez (.359), Hoiles (.390), Orsulak (.352),
and even Mark McLemore (.325) wasn't too bad.  The Thang lists OPS by lineup
slot for each team; for Baltimore we get

	1. .830		(Anderson)
	2. .750		
	3. .715
	4. .754
	5. .701
	6. .753
	7. .738
	8. .792
	9. .648		(B. Ripken, mostly)

What's wrong with this picture?



-- 
       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: cs902060@ariel.yorku.ca (GEOFFREY E DIAS)
Subject: Question about AL position pitchers in batting lineup
Organization: York University, Toronto, Canada
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 03:00:42 GMT



	I was looking at the boxscore of the Orioles-Indians game. There
were three Baltimore pitchers in the batting lineup (although they all had
pinch hitters batting for them).

	What quirk in the rule book brought about this condition? And when
was the last time this happenned? I noticed that the DH had moved to right
field. Did this mean that the DH position had to be forfeited and substituted
with the pitcher's in the lineup?
From: mikef@bvc.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: RE: RANDY JOHNSON
Date: 30 Sep 92 11:19:36 CDT
Organization: Buena Vista College, Storm Lake, IA

JOHNSON FINISHED WITH EIGHTEEN K'S.  A REMARKABLE FEAT, BUT THEY LOST THE 
GAME ANYWAY.
Organization: Senior, Electrical and Computer Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 11:44:31 -0400 
From: Amit Likhyani <al1x+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: McCarver sucks

I have not watched a CBS baseball broadcast for a long time, so I
decided to have an open mind and actually listen to Tim McCarver.  Once
again, I could not listen past the fifth inning.

My biggest problem with McCarver is that it seems like he is rooting for
Barry Bonds to leave the Pirates.  He must have mentioned Bonds immenent
departure every half inning.  I am not saying that Barry is not leaving,
but I don't want to be reminded of it every time he steps to the plate,
drives in a run, makes a catch, or comes up in conversation.  Looking
back, it seems like he was rooting for Bonilla to leave the Pirates
also.  

His entire attitude when broadcasting is that he knows everything and he
really has no concept.  Statistically he has not progressed past the
triple crown stats.  RBI's are everything to him.  He said that Bonds
did not deserve the MVP until this hot streak and that he would have
given it to Sheffield because of the triple crown run.  Bonds has led
the NL in OPS since well before this recent hot streak and his number
are slightly down because he missed 18 games.  Tim never mentioned that.

Once again, he went into inane trivia, and really made a 19-2 Pirate win
less enjoying than it could have been.

I will turn off the sound and listen to the Pirates announcers or music.
 When the Pirates are on the verge of clinching the Pennant and world
Series, I will flip Tim on and see him try to mitigate the
"small-market" Pirates accomlishments and he will probably get a "Bonds
is leaving" quote in there just to piss me off.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: claudius@leland.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu)
Subject: Re: The Superlatives of the NL
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 92 04:45:31 GMT

In article <6877@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> jrmst8+@pitt.edu (Joseph R Mcdonald) writes:

>>Most disappointing hitter: Matt Williams
>
>Tim Wallach gets honorable (dishonorable?) mention.

No, Joe; Wallach was not disappointing; he was merely doing what everyone
predicted for him all along.  If anything, he was *better* (slightly) than his
performance last year, so you can't really call him disappointing. :-)

>>Best Manager: Jim Leyland (I still don't understand how he did it)
>
>See Barry Bonds.

And Andy Van Slyke.  And Don Slaught.  And Alex Cole.  And Doug Drabek.

This is why I think Felipe Alou should win the manager of the year, although,
as indicated above, he did insist on playing Wallach everyday.

===============================================================================
GO CALIFORNIA ANGELS!
===============================================================================
Nelson Lu (claudius@leland.stanford.edu)
From: z_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Lead off walks....
Date: 3 Oct 92 20:14:17 GMT
Article-I.D.: ccsvax.1992Oct3.141417.1345
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University

In article <1992Oct2.201742.28863@Princeton.EDU>, roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
> In article <1992Oct2.130542.1330@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> z_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
>>	Yes, I did say this, but I was looking at it from the *start* of the
>>inning, not *after* the first batter reached base. This ain't the gambler's
>>fallacy (though it is largely irrelevant). From the start of an inning, there
>>is a slightly better chance of a team scoring if the first runner reaches
>>via walk than hit, 
> 
> WHOA!  There's your conditional probability right there: the "if."
> Which means that you're *not* taking it from the start of the inning;

	I'll admit to making a big logical mistake, but I still don't think it
was the gambler's falalcy.

>>However, this would indicate that a leadoff walk should score *much* more often
>>than a leadoff single, so 1 hit/inning theory doesn't seem to hold very well,
> 
> Why not? It's empirically proven.  League batting average is around .250,
> which means 3 outs per hit, or one hit per inning, on average.
> 

	I didn't mean that pitchers don't give up a hit an inning :-)

	What I meant (and poorly said) was that if my argument was sound (which
it wasn't) that a walk followed by a hit (or anything else) would score more 
often than a single followed by anything else.

	My mistake was misusing the "1 hit an inning" fact.
          
>>not upset about knowing that. What does irk me is that you and the other stat
>>heads are so damned rude to anyone who doesn't fall down and kiss your feet.
> 
> Huh?  When you first posted what you did, I responded with a humorous
> analogy -- the bomb joke.  That was simply to make obvious the problem
> in your argument.  Nothing to do with statistics; people who hate statistics
> but know their logical fallacies would do the same.  I don't want you to
> kiss my feet, though simple courtesy would be just fine.  I don't recall
> saying anything nasty about you -- or, for that matter, of invoking
> statistics.  My argument was strictly on the philosophical side of
> probability theory.

	Sorry, that line wasn't meant for you. Of the 3-4 staheads on the
newsgroup who constantly get on my case, you are probably the most polite.

Brandon Cope
From: gt3477c@prism.gatech.EDU (Stutzman, Bryan Raymond)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: BRAVES Post Season Roster
Date: 28 Sep 92 13:57:59 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

Without going into the possibility of blowing the week and not
going to the NCLS, what will be the Braves post season roster?
Jeff Treadway has seen no playing time recently and Mercker and
Pena are questionable.

Here are my suspected 25:

C: Damon Berryhill
   Javy Lopez
   Francisco Cabrera

1B: Sid Bream
    Brian Hunter

2B:  Mark Lemke
     Jeff Treadway ?

SS:  Rafael Belliard
     Jeff Blauser

3B:  Terry Pendleton

OF:  Otis Nixon
     David Justice
     Ron Gant
     Lonnie Smith
     Deion Sanders

SP:  Tom Glavine
     John Smoltz
     Steve Avery
     Charlie Liebrandt

RP:  Peter Smith
     Mark Wohlers
     Mike Stanton
     Jeff Reardon
     David Nied
     Kent Mercker ?

Others:  IF: Vinny Castilla
             Ryan Klesko

     OF: Melvin Nieves

     P: Alejandro Pen~a ?
        Mark Davis
        Randy St. Claire

There is also the possibility of moving Peter Smith to the starting rotation

Bryan Stutzman
-- 
_________   
\   / \  \  Stutzman, Bryan Raymond
 | |   |  | Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332-0205
/___\ /__/  ARPA: gt3477c@prism.gatech.edu, brs@isye.gatech.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: nissim@mary.fordham.edu (Leonard J. Nissim)
Subject: for Dodger fans only
Organization: Fordham University
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Distribution: usa
Keywords:  Dodgers
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 19:38:00 GMT
X-Posted-From: mary.fordham.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

How bad was it?  [strings of obscene and scatological expletives deleted]!
Very bad indeed.  Unless you are over 90 years old, you can not remember it 
this bad.  63-99 in not major league baseball.  It is 26th of 26, and will set 
the negative standard for other teams.  

For the record, the 35 games back is the worst we've done since 1944,
                the .389 winning percentage is the worst since 1912,
                the 99 losses is the worst since 1908,
                and the last place finish is the first since 1905.   

What do we need?  Nearly everything.  A partial list:  Middle infielders
who can catch and throw the ball.  A third baseman who can both hit and 
field.  An entirely new bullpen, whose residents do not deserve nicknames
like gasoline, kerosene, and lighter fluid.  Healthy slugging outfielders.
And a new general manager.  

How long until 1993 Spring Training?  See you in Vero Beach.  
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leonard Nissim, notorious Dodger fanatic     (nissim@mary.fordham.edu)  
Disclaimer:  "I speak only for myself."   
World Championships:  Brooklyn-----1955   
                      Los Angeles--1959  1963  1965  1981  1988
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------