HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: summers@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (erick m. summers)
Subject: Re: The value of speed (was Re: bonds in atlanta in 1993)
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 20:59:46 GMT

Well here the results are in for the groups favorite  Braves lineup if they   
were to acquire Bonds.  Thanks for all the input.  Here are the
lineups again.

Lineup 1:			Lineup 2:	
	Nixon/Sanders  CF		Gant       LF
	Blauser        2B  		Blauser    2B
	Pendleton      3B		Pendleton  3B
	Bonds          RF 		Bonds      CF
	Justice        1B      		Justice    RF
	Gant           LF 		Bream      1B
	Olson          C		Olson      C
	Belliard       SS		Belliard   SS
	PITCHER        P		PITCHER    P

Lineup 3:			Lineup 4:
	Nixon/Sanders CF		Blauser    2B
	Blauser       2B		Pendleton  3B
 	Pendleton     3B 		Gant       LF
        Bonds         LF		Bonds      CF
        Justice       RF		Justice    RF
	Bream         1B		Bream      1B
 	Olson         C			Olson      C
	Belliard      SS		Belliard   SS
	PITCHER       P			PITCHER    P
	
Those choosing lineup #1:	Erick Summers
			  	Gregory A Mettlach 
				Kit Cosper
				Thomas Ruschak
				Jason Gische
				Dave (DCBECK@INDYVAX.IUPUI.EDU)
				Lyle Youngblood

Those choosing lineup #2:	Dale Stephenson

Those choosing lineup #3:	Kelley Miles

Those choosing lineup #4:	Edward [Ted] Fisher (aka Valentine)

I'd also like to note that a few others (including Nelson Lu) suggested
playing Klesko at first, but our basic argument was Justice vs Bream, so
they were not included.

Also suggested was Bonds in the third spot, which I would have to agree 
would be a better idea.

It's obvious that those who returned a vote (including Braves fans who
like Bream) prefer lineup #1.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Erick M. Summers                                      ========           *
* (summers@mentor.cc.purdue.edu)                        ///   //           *
* (summerem@expert.cc.purdue.edu)                      ///====             *
*                                                     ///                  *
* "The best way to hit the curve ball               =====                  *
*  is to hit the fast ball."                     PIRANHA ATHLETICS         *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: rising@zoo.toronto.edu (Jim Rising)
Subject: Expand the Play-offs
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 13:35:11 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

As the number of ML teams increases via expansion, it seems to me
that it would make sense to expand to three or four leagues, which
logically would expand the playoffs.  With the present number of
teams I would prefer to see the playoffs unchanged, although I
wouldn't be unhappy with a best of 9 series with no days off
in the midst.
-- 
Name:     Jim Rising
Mail:     Dept. Zoology, Univ. Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada    M5S 1A1
UUCP:     uunet!attcan!utzoo!rising 
BITNET:   rising@zoo.utoronto.ca
From: rlwilliams@gallua.gallaudet.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Favorite players of youth, marichal and mccovey
Date: 6 Nov 92 16:23:15 GMT
Article-I.D.: gallua.1992Nov6.112315.1
Organization: Gallaudet University


My two favorite players were Juan Marichal... and Willie McCovey. I loved 
to watch Marichal's pitching motion and I can still remember reading about 
this rookie for the Giants who pitched a one hitter against the Phillies in 
his major league debut. I remember when he got hit on the hand by a pitch 
during the 62 world series. I wonder if the Giants might have won that one 
if he'd had a few more starts in it. I always thought he would pitch 
forever and was a cinch to win 300 games.  Just last week I heard about a 
conversation with Warren Spahn about a game that he pitched against 
Marichal. It went 16 innings with Marichal finally prevailing 1 - 0. Both 
pitchers went all the way (talk about achievements. Has any pair come close 
to that since?). Spahn said that after that game he started to go down 
hill quickly and was never quite the same pitcher.

My other favorite was Willie McCovey. What a gentle man and what a swing. 
I loved to watch him run... once he got up to speed, he covered a lot of 
ground... I remember  a reporter's telephone conversation with him:

Reporter: Hi Willie, Did I wake you?
Wille: Some.

I also remember his final at bat which was, I think a game winning hit 
against the dodgers in a pinch hitting appearance.  I think he won both MVP 
and comeback of the year award during his career which can't be that 
common.

skip
From: yankees@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu (Kenneth M Gelfand)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Yankees protected list
Date: 10 Nov 92 22:20:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: jhuvms.10NOV199217202961
Distribution: na
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University - HCF
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Nov10.212228.600@osf.org>, ron@osf.org (Ron Birnbaum) writes...
>In article <10NOV199213370980@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu>, yankees@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu (Kenneth M Gelfand) writes:
>|> 
>|> According to the NY Times, here are the players the Yankees have
>|> supposedly protected:
>|> 
>|> 	Don Mattingly	
>|> 	Pat Kelly
>|> 	JT Snow
>|> 	Melido Perez
>|> 	Bob Wickman
>|> 	Sam Millitello
>|> 	Rich Monteleone
>|> 	Sterling Hitchcock
>|> 	Mark Hutton
>|> 	Paul O'Neill
>|> 	Bernie Williams
>|> 	Gerald Williams
>|> 	Carl Everett
> 
>  Who's going to play SS & 3B?? How can they not protect their best
>reliever (Farr) and best hitter (Tartabull)?
> 
>|> The last two spots are up for grabs between these guys:
>|> 
>|> 	Danny Tartabull
>|> 	Charlie Hayes
>|> 	Randy Velarde
>|> 	Brad Ausmus
>|> 	Steve Farr
>|> 	Russ Springer
>|> 	Russ Davis
>|> 
>|> 	The Times is also reporting that Tartabull's agent was told that
>|> he was protected.  In other news, Barry Bonds told WABC radio that he would
>|> "love to play for the Yankees." May be a negotiating ploy, but one can hope.
>|> 
>|> 
>|> 							Kenny G
>|> 
>|> The three Yankees taken through the draft: 
>|>    Kevin Maas, Mike Stanley, Jim Leyritz (still praying)
> 
>  What about Andy Stankewicz?? Why wasn't he protected? Habyan? I'd say they
>had to protect Tartabull and Farr. Why protect O'Neill?? He ain't 1/2 the 
>player Tartabull is!! Heck - forget about Snow, for that matter - he's too old
>now to develop into a great player. Although he is good trade bait - and the
>Yanks should have traded him before the draft. Of course, they never should have
>traded Kelly for O'Neill, but that's another matter.


                 Stanky is a quality player for what he does, which is fill
in admirably at a bunch of different positions.  It's unlikely that he will
be taken given the Yankee minor league talent, and if he is, the Yankees 
still have Mike Gallego for two years at big money to do what Stanky does.
	Habyan is in the same boat, given that he had a serious back ailment,
covered it up, and was lit up the second half of the year.  He's a quality
pitcher when he's right, but I don't think an expansion team would want to
take a chance on him.  Snow has more trade value than other prospect, even 
now, and must be protected.  Not protecting O'Neill would be a PR fiasco
if he were lost because Roberto Kelly for nothing would definitely be an
unfair trade.  Farr's age and injuries last year again make him an unlikely
pickup.
	If the Yankees lose Maas, Meulens and only one other player, they
should consider themselves lucky.  Just to add, the list I provided 
was taken from sources "close to Gene Michael" and is obviously not the
official list.

> 
>-Ron

							Kenny G
From: snichols@adobe.com (Sherri Nichols)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Giants Sale Rejected 9-4
Date: 13 Nov 92 19:31:07 GMT
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated

In article <74249@apple.apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Eeyore's Evil Twin) writes:
>snichols@adobe.com (Sherri Nichols) writes:
>
>>The Giants, under the current ownership, are a poorly marketed team.
>>Candlestick Park is a problem, but it's hardly the only reason attendance
>>isn't what it could be.  I was reading a comment by one of the potential
>>new owners that one of the goals would be better family marketing, so maybe
>>there's hope.
>
>I'll disagree with this. The Giants, under current ownership, are marketed
>as a traditional baseball team. That tact works in many markets, including
>LA and Chicago.

Well, I'll disagree with this.  I don't think "traditional" baseball
marketing works in many markets at all, not even Chicago and LA.  What
makes you think traditional baseball marketing (just throw open the doors,
we're having a game tonight) works anywhere these days?  The Dodgers have
never struck me as typical of traditional baseball marketing, nor the Cubs,
and the White Sox haven't been that stunning an attendance success.  

>On the other hand, they've talked about playing ALL DAY GAMES except for
>Friday evenings, too. While the Giants tried something similar a few years
>ago to relatively little sucess, if they commit to day games and stick to
>the schedule over a period of a few years, they can probably convince fans
>to start coming out on a regular basis.

If they go to all day games, it will certainly cut down on the number of
Giants games I attend.  I'm just not willing to blow off work for weekday
day games more than about once a season.

>mentioned as the solution. When push comes to shove, it's still Candlestick,
>and when you ask Giants fans (like me) why they don't go to see games in
>person (also like me), lack of dot racing isn't high on the list of missing
>items.

As I pointed out to the Toronto fans, the stadium is not uniquely bad.  And
I'm not talking dot-racing, I'm talking caring whether your fans are happy
or not. 

Sherri Nichols
snichols@adobe.com
From: ksm@be.seas.upenn.edu (Ken MacFarlane)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Will the draft be on TV?
Keywords: Charter Member, Gene Michael Fan Club
Date: 12 Nov 92 21:58:06 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

Saw this morning:
ESPN will be televising the Expansion Draft, starting at 2 pm, Tuesday.

-Ken.
--
Ken MacFarlane              |  email:  ksm@eniac.seas.upenn.edu 
CETS Technical Staff        |          ksm@pender.ee.upenn.edu  
University of Pennsylvania  | office:  057 GRW (Moore Building)
Philadelphia, PA  19104     |  phone:  (215)898-2476
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: 5 truly unbreakable records.
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 18:58:24 GMT

In article <92313.124703RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu> RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu writes:
>"aren't records supposed to have minimums associated with them?
> blah blah blah, blah blah..."
>
>                                   -some charles guy.
===	if you have a problem with something i say, you could
	at least have the decency to include it for reference,
	considering that the post you refer to was all of 5 lines long.
	or were you afraid that others would see it and at least
	concede that i *might* have a point?
	is that why you chose to be demeaning?
>
>first, charles, you cannot possibly deny (and stand a chance of being
>correct) that the highest lifetime batting average is 1.000.
===	if you had bothered to read what i said, instead of just
	paraphrasing and attacking it, you would see that i
	never DID deny it. i denied the relevance and importance
	of such a record with so few at-bats. why do you think
	batting and era titles are subjected to minimums anyway?
>
>second, sure, these have a minimum, too.  one at bat.  or one third of
>an inning pitched.  (except for "coolest", which balb wins hands down
>even with no such minimum).
===	oh really? when was the last time a guy won a batting title
	with one at bat? or an era title with 1/3 innings pitched?
>
>third, charles, would it have helped if i had included a few of those
>inane "smiley" things?
===	no, it would have helped if:
	1. you had included my post
	2. you hadn't been so (unjustifiably) demeaning and rude
	3. you had sent this to me directly if your only purpose
	   was to flame me with no real logical argument of my
	   position. or do you feel the need to spread your
	   dirty laundry in public?
>
>
>bob vesterman.
===	you have a nice day Bob. it's a real pleasure discussing
	"baseball" with you.

--
charles
From: sfh@po.CWRU.Edu (Steven F. Hubbard)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: 5 truly unbreakable records.
Date: 13 Nov 1992 15:45:20 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: sfh@po.CWRU.Edu (Steven F. Hubbard)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, eric@parcplace.com (Eric Ching) says:

>dsimon@atlas.nafb.trw.com writes:
>
>>>>8) Fewest pitches thrown in an inning: 3.  many people
>>> 
>>> This one, easily the most insightful record of all time, 
>>> made me wonder.  Wouldn't that record be one?  If it's the
>>> bottom of the ninth, and the leadoff batter hits a game
>>> winning homer on the first pitch, the game is over, which 
>>> seems to mean the inning is over, with only one pitch thrown.
>
>>I guess the original poster meant "fewest pitches thrown in a 3-out inning."
>
>>But how about the following scenario.  The pitcher gives up a single to 
>>the leadoff batter on the first pitch.  He then balks, runners on
>>first and second, 1 pitch thrown.  He then picks off both runners.
>>The next batter pops up on the first pitch thrown to him.
>
>>The pitcher recorded three outs and got through the inning with only 
>>two pitches.  I wonder if anything like this has ever happened.
>
>>- Dan Simon -
>
>
>Now wait a second!  Since when does balking put the batter on base???
>On a pitcher's balk, the runner(s) move up, but the batter stays put
>(assuming the batter doesn't put the ball in play).
>
>
>Now...the *real* answer to "fewest pitches thrown in a 3-out inning"
>is ONE.
>
>Have fun figuring out this one...Note that it's *highly* improbable,
>yet there's a possible situation in which one pitch is all you need...
>
>
>
  If players bat frighteningly out of order, it seems you could get through
an inning with no pitches.


SfH
-- 
Steven F. Hubbard                ** "If anything ever looked six years old,
Case Western Reserve University  **                it's that."
Department of Physics            ** -- Tim McCarver, refering to Mark Lemke's
Cleveland, OH 44106              ** baseball glove in game 2.
From: camden@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu (Rany Jazayerli)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: 5 most BREAKABLE records
Date: 7 Nov 92 02:05:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: jhuvms.6NOV199221050941
Distribution: na
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University - HCF
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1575.2afa9231@atlas.nafb.trw.com>, dsimon@atlas.nafb.trw.com
 writes...
>Okay, I've heard enough about the 419 record which will never be broken.
>What I'm interested in is what are the most BREAKABLE records?

	Of all the significant records (as opposed, say, to the record for most
pieces of Bazooka (tm) bubble gum chewed at one time), I believe that the 
record for most career saves is in most jeopardy of being broken.  Already this
year, both Jeff Reardon and Lee Smith went by Rollie Fingers' standard of saves
in a career, though Reardon in particular was sputtering there at the end. 

	The present list of most career saves by active pitchers is:

	Reardon 	357
	L Smith		355
	Gossage		308
	Righetti	251
	Eckersley	239
	Franco		226
	Henke		220
	D Smith		216
	Thigpen		200
	D Jones		164
	J Howell	153
	R McDowell	149
	M Williams	143
	Plesac		133
	Myers		131
	Olson		131

	As you see, with Reardon and Lee Smith so close at the top, I see it
very likely that Smith will cruise by Reardon sometime next year, as it's 
unlikely that Reardon will be able to sign on to a team as the undisputed 
closer.  However, I get the feeling that Smith lost a lot on his stuff this 
year, and wouldn't be surprised if he began to seriously tank it next year.  At
most, he'll finish his career with close to 400.  That would place the record
at a level that would be hard for any of the guys on this list to attain, though
it is possible that both Eckersley and Henke could reach it, assuming they keep
pitching well and saving games into their 40's.  The only other guy on this list
with a good chance of reaching the 400-save plateau would be Gregg Olson, who
is a relatively young 26, and could conceivably be saving 25-30 games a year for
the next ten years.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: dmeister@mansci1.UWaterloo.ca (Darren Meister)
Subject: Tampa Bay Contract Re: Giants Will Stay!!!
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 22:49:22 GMT

In article <TOM.92Nov11112158@amber.ssd.csd.harris.com> tom@ssd.csd.harris.com (Tom Horsley) writes:
>Yep. The Giants will stay in SF alright, but now the real fun begins.
>
>Since the Tampa group does, in fact, have a signed contract in their
>hands, lawsuits will definitely be filed.

This is not a flame but Tampa signed the contract and knew that it had
to be ratified by the owners in accordance with the guidelines. I have
a feeling that I'm wrong but shouldn't this rule out a law suit.
-- 
Darren Meister                                    dmeister@mansci1.waterloo.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: g_waugaman@nac.enet.dec.com (Glenn R. Waugaman)
Subject: Re: Extra playoffs (was: Re: I'm sorry, Jays didn't show me much)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 22:06:47 GMT


In article <1992Nov4.231819.6859@adobe.com>, snichols@adobe.com (Sherri Nichols) writes...
>In article <1992Nov3.153544.3581@asd.com> scott@asd.com (Scott Barman) writes:
>>If you read further in the posting it is because the owners want it and
>>the precedence they are using says people will buy it anyway.
> 
>Scott, how is this different from what I said originally, which you took
>exception to?  And I quote:
> 
>#In article <1992Oct28.190139.29339@adobe.com> snichols@adobe.com (Sherri
>#Nichols) writes:
>#
>#And playoffs are fun and exciting.  Presumably, the owners want to do this
>#because more people are interested in watching more playoff games.

It's very possible that the networks can make more money from more playoff 
games at the same time a majority of baseball fans are opposed to such a 
system (and are *not* interested in watching more playoff games).  At much
lower per-game ratings, the networks can conceivably still get more people
to watch in total, and make more money.  For one thing, most people do
have other things to do in their lives than to watch baseball, so more
games gives casual fans more opportunities to catch one, if even by
accident.  That doesn't mean that more people are interested; it's totally
a function of external factors, like happening to be in front of a TV and
seeing that baseball offers a better instant alternative than the
Whitewater Kayaking Championships on ESPN.  Add in the fact that these
extra playoffs further allow the networks to compete against each other
for a share of a larger money pie (driving up the price of individual 
per-series bids), and what do we really know about actual fan interest? 
Not much. 

Similar TV ratings and money games are played right now, where the intent
is *not* to maximize the number of interested baseball fans watching, but
to maximize the incoming revenue.  How about the 8:30 PM starts on the 
weekends, where the networks don't care about the kids because they don't
fit the advertisers' preferred demographic group?  Or that with those same
late start times the networks don't care if millions don't make it to the
end of the game because the percentages show that most games aren't close
(the past two World Series notwithstanding) and get turned off early, and
late-night ratings aren't that hot anyway?  MLB *knows* that these things
don't maximize the number of interested baseball fans watching, and have
even requested earlier start times from the networks to prove it!  The
networks respond with "well, give us some of our money back".  Fat chance.
This game isn't about the fan interest; that was Scott's point. 

---
Glenn Waugaman
Digital Equipment Corporation
Littleton, MA
g_waugaman@nac.enet.dec.com
---
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: tedward@cs.cornell.edu (Edward [Ted] Fischer)
Subject: Re: John Valentin
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 18:21:11 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.165341.7212@engage.pko.dec.com> kuras@aiag.enet.dec.com () writes:
>
>< case, any time a player hits better in the majors than in the minors,
>< you *know* it is a fluke.  
>
>I won't argue that statement. But, would you be willing to tell that to
>Jim Rice and Fred Lynn (the "Gold Dust Twins" of 1975)?  ;-) ;-)

Tell me, then.  How did they hit in the minors?  (BA, OBP, SLG, and
number of AB are enough.)  Also, how old were they?

It is *not* unusual for a 22 or 23 year old player to suddenly improve
a lot.  It is rather more unusual for a 25 year old player to do so.

Sure, Lynn and Rice hit very well their rookie year.  But they were
young, and I *suspect* they slaughtered minor league pitching.

Listach is a better test of this principle.  Which, of course, is just
a principle and will sometimes not hold true.  Most of the time,
though...

-Valentine
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: wayman@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Jeffrey Wayman)
Subject: Re: Who was the favorite player of your youth?.
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1992 18:16:45 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523

In article <1dc77oINNjep@master.cs.rose-hulman.edu> rickert@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (John H. Rickert) writes:
>
>OK, now for someone completely different:
>
>	Manny Sanguillen
>
>
I can beat that....my friend's favorite player was Dick Dietz.

Jeff
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: arrow@netcom.com (Les Arrow)
Subject: Re: It's So Simple!!!
Keywords: Read my lips -  :-)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 22:55:38 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.181709.15579@gmuvax2.gmu.edu> kaufman@gmuvax2.gmu.edu (Ken Kaufman) writes:
>There's such an elegant solution to the San Francisco/Tampa Bay
>struggle, I'm surprised nobody's come up with it:  :-) :-) :-)
>
>1)  The Giants stay in San Francisco.
>2)  The Cubs move to St. Petersburg.
>
>Everybody's happy.  Look what this accomplishes:
>
>     1) San Francisco has a baseball team.
>     2) Tampa Bay has a baseball team.
>     3) Chicago has a baseball team.
>     4) The Tribune Company now has some justification for keeping their
>        club in the NL East.
>     etc.

Or, how about the Giants just move to St. Petersburg
	1) Tampa Bay has a baseball team
	2) Chicago has a baseball team
	3) San Francisco has a baseball team 
		They're called the A's

--Les
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball