HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rickert@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (John H. Rickert)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: tired arms (WAS Re: Cone threw how many pitches?)
Date: 27 Jul 92 22:10:57 GMT
Organization: Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology


In article <Jul.27.15.47.35.1992.8185@remus.rutgers.edu>  
zelek@remus.rutgers.edu (Grey Wolf) writes:
>  Who says that making a pitcher work a little harder will shorten his 
> career? There's considerable debate going on these days on whether or not 
> it's the  LACK of consistant use that does a pitcher in these days.  Not 
> terribly long ago staff aces used to throw 20+ complete games a year and 
> well over 300  innings per season.  
> That's probably enough pitches for almost two full seasons in today's game.  
> Two pitchers in all of baseball have manaed to throw
> 250+ innings in each of the last four years.  
> [Roger Clemens and Greg Maddux]
>  Besides, look at ole Nolan.  
> How many pitches do you think *he's* thrown so far?  
> [So far meaning he's not done *yet*!]

Craig Wright goes through many of the available cases in
"The Diamond Appraised"(TDA). He found that the problem was not just IP
but 'IP when tired by a young pitcher'.
 From TDA;
" Seen in this light, Nolan Ryan's career 
is a very interesting case history.  ...
what really stands out about Nolan's career is 
the light workload of his early years.  ... 
He totaled only 801 innings speard out over 
seven years prior to age twenty-five."

[Ryan's IP from age 18; 78,205,11,134,89,132,152
  This includes minor league IP]

Most of those 300IP 'staff aces' saw their arms die a few years later.

Out of curiosity I used the Franklin to find out how many Forty-year-olds
pitched in the 19th century (when 500IP wasn't that unusual, but home plate
was closer and underarm was OK).
The answer is none. 
The oldest was Bob 'Death to flying things' Ferguson an 
outfielder(I think) who threw 1 inning at the age of 38.

john rickert
rickert@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu
From: rajeev@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com (Rajeev Menon)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Baseball Buns: Rocket Roger's Latest
Date: 21 Jul 92 16:14:25 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Santa Rosa, CA

In rec.sport.baseball, ron@osf.org (Ron Birnbaum) writes:

    In article <20JUL92.13154682@vax.clarku.edu>, hhenderson@vax.clarku.edu writes:
    |> Entertaining stories in the Sunday papers.
    |> "This is the lowest blow since I've been here (Boston)," said
    |> Clemens.  Yeah, probably.  It just seems weird (prima-donnaish?)
    |> to wait a month (until he has an awesome outing under his belt)
    |> to retaliate.

      Since Kimball left town immediately after the article was published - this
      was the first time the two had met since the article appeared. George was
      lucky Roger didn't punch his face in.

    -Ron

ESPN radio had Dan Patrick interview Kimball. Apparently, the Rocketman
Roger and Kimball were in the same room, within about five feet of each 
other, a week ago, and Kimball was at a loss as to why Roger chose to do 
his charade now. Something to do with not winning in 6 starts ?

I feel so bad for Roger. He is such a caring individual and had to work
so hard to mouth a few harsh words for Kimball. And to Roger's credit, he
never once used Kimball's name.

rajeev
From: hackney.ecn.purdue.!ehlerswm@overmind.mind.org
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Where have all the flakes gone?
Date: 22 Jul 92 21:20:00 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
X-mailer: Stadel 3.4a-227
X-Spam-content: irrelevant

In article <22597@oasys.dt.navy.mil> kiviat@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Brian Kiviat) 
writes:
>In rec.sport.baseball, U39730@uicvm.uic.edu (Norma Kateeb) writes:
>>Are there any modern day flakes left in baseball?
>>Okay fans--is there anyone today--be it player, manager, GM, umpire--
>>ANYONE who adds some life and fun to the game today?
>
>Rick Dempsey has done multiple interviews as Johny Oates. They both
>are about the same age/size/moustache etc. Some sports commentators
>have been fooled.
>
>Ben McDonald played for about a week with one Elvis/90210 sideburn on
>a dare from Brady Anderson.
>
>These are not as hysterical as Norm Cash going to the plate with a table
>leg batting against Nolan Ryan but, it is a start.
>
>-Brian

I have an idea.  Since people are wonder where all the flakes have gone
why don't we start a thread about our favorite 'flake' stories.  Whether
you actually saw them or just read about them.

>From his book, Bob Ueker(?) tells about shagging fly balls in the 
outfield with a tuba....

Any story from Ron Luciano's books about umpiring are great.

etc, etc

What do you say ????

later,
   ---Mark
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: tedward@cs.cornell.edu (Edward [Ted] Fischer)
Subject: Free agency and player's values
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 05:28:28 GMT


I'm wondering...  We can estimate what a player is worth in terms of
wins-above-replacement-level.  Over a career, players add (hopefully
:-) to this total.  My question is:

On the average, what percentage of a player's value accumulates
*before* he hits free agency (in his first six years, I guess)?

While superstars will often continue to produce at a high level until
they are 35 or older, it seems that most players do most of their
production before they are 30.  (Remember that we are considering
production-above-replacement-level, not total hits or total RBIs or
something like that...)  I would not be surprised if, on the average,
60% of a players production comes *before* free agency.

Which might explain why small-market teams continue to be competitive.
They not only get the best part of their players before they become
free agents, but they are compensated with an unusual share of the
talent in the draft...

If free agency were granted after only three years, would all small
market teams then join Cleveland in the cellar?

Cheers,
-Valentine
-- 
Quantrill gets his shot at the bigs.... 	tedward@cs.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: 91287041@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (roger maynard)
Subject: Re: Value of Stats
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Laurentian University, Sudbury, ON
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 20:23:24 GMT

In <3845@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> dtate+@pitt.edu (David M Tate) writes:

>This is important.  In fact, what is most important is that we can go beyond
>this a bit, as follows.  Our models predict actual winning and losing up to a
>certain percent of error that we can't seem to get rid of.  Now, that error
>is the portion of winning that is not "explained" by the model.  It could have
>several components: clutch performance, personal intangibles, attitude, team
>chemistry, sheer random luck.  But, and this is the key, the *sum* of those
>effects can't be any bigger than the variation from what is predicted that we
>actually observe.  If the model is invariably correct within 5%, then the sum
>total of all the luck, chemistry, clutchness, etc. is no more than 5% of the
>process.

I agree with this totally except for the 5% figure.  Are you telling me that
you can predict the Win/Loss of all teams to within 5%?  Before the case?  Not
likely.  If you really can I would like to know more about it.

>Now, probability theory can often tell us how much variation we should expect
>to see if luck were the *only* other factor besides the model components.  And
>quite often, when we look at how much variation due to luck we should expect

How often?

>to see, that amount accounts for essentially *all* of the model's variation 

*Essentially* all?

>from actual performance.  In other words, there's no place left for those
>other effects to be hiding, because their variance would show up in the total
>variation of the process.  The variance of the sum of independent processes
>is equal to the sum of their individual variances.  Unless someone can come
>up with a good reason to think that (say) chemistry and clutch hitting are
>negatively correlated (!), the combination of the model and the random 
>variation in the model that we expect to see accounts for almost all of the
>behavior we observe in real life.

When you say "quite often" and "essentially all" you are hinting that there
are inconsistencies in this theory.  Do intangibles have a small impact?
How much of an impact do they have? Do winning teams fit the model better 
or worse than losing teams?

rm

-- 
roger maynard                    
91287041@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca
From: riff@coos.dartmouth.edu (Christopher P. Riff)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Turk Wendell
Date: 30 Jul 92 19:07:10 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

twap8@isuvax.iastate.edu (Mike McNarney) writes:

>Kevin Roberson: out for season, bulging disc. Jerome Walton: ditto. Lance
>Dickson: out for season, I forget for what. Scott Bryant (came over in
>trade w/ Reds for former #1 pick Earl Cunningham) is taking BP and should
                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>be back in the next week after breaking his wrist 7/5 in a HBP. There are
>some pitchers hurt, but I forget who. 

That should be former #1 pick Ty Griffin.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: claudius@leland.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu)
Subject: Re: formula for projected runs?
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 06:04:43 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.220941.283@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> a_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
>Is there a formula for determining how many runs scored a team *should have* 
>based on various team totals (extra base hits, steals, walks, etc.)? I've
>seen reference many times to a team scoring above or below their projected
>total -- I was just wondering how those magazines/net.readers calculate
>a team's projected runs.

Probably by using RC?  After all, Bill James did design it as a measure of
team offense, and he claimed that it correspond well with actual runs scored.

===============================================================================
GO CALIFORNIA ANGELS!
Committee to Elect Johnny Ray as Angels Second Baseman
Committee to Elect Mike Witt as Angels Ace
Committee to Elect Cookie Rojas as Angels Manager
===============================================================================
Nelson Lu (claudius@leland.stanford.edu)
From: demers@cs.ucsd.edu (David DeMers)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Value of Stats
Date: 28 Jul 92 21:43:29 GMT
Organization: =CSE Dept., U.C. San Diego

In article <Jul.28.09.49.52.1992.8654@pilot.njin.net> gajarsky@pilot.njin.net (Bob Gajarsky) writes:
>bonds has played *left* field for most of his career.   

Yes, we know.  But that's because the Pirates have Van Slyke
in CF; one of the few OFs better than Bonds defensively.
Bonds is capable of playing CF; most LFs aren't.

-- 
Dave DeMers			 ddemers@UCSD   demers@cs.ucsd.edu
Computer Science & Engineering	C-014		demers%cs@ucsd.bitnet
UC San Diego					...!ucsd!cs!demers
La Jolla, CA 92093-0114	(619) 534-0688, or -8187, FAX: (619) 534-7029
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: west@esd.dl.nec.com (Mike West)
Subject: Re: Early Morning thoughts of a Computer Science Grad Students
Organization: NEC America, Engineering & Support
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 20:15:31 GMT

From article <1992Jul28.191102.15342@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com>, by paula@koufax.cv.hp.com (Paul Andresen):
> In article <1992Jul21.163137.20007@cs.umn.edu>, lsmith@cs.umn.edu (Lance "Not Here" Smith) writes:
>   
> |> - If you had to pick a team based on the quotability of their interviews
> |>   who would it include? Andy Van Slyke, Junior Ortiz, Jose Canseco, and
> |>   maybe Hector Villaneuva, but who else?  
> 
> Please not to forget Larry Andersen, who, in addition to having a name which
> is *nearly* spelled correctly, has come up with such jewels as:
> 
> "How come sour cream has an expiration date?"
> "Why do we drive on the parkway and park on the driveway?"
> "If 7-11 stores are open 24 hours, why do they have locks on the doors?"

You forgot a critical one:
"You are only young once, but you can be immature forever."

Mike West
west@esd.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: jhg8680@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Jon  Hamkins)
Subject: Re: RP/PA for AL and NL (More bogus RP stats)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 22:12:19 GMT

djohnson@cayley.waterloo.edu (David Johnson) writes:

>On most teams isn't the number 3 and 4 guys good RBI men who knock in
>the number 1 and 2 guys who get on base a lot.  By this theory the number
>1 and 2 guys score a lot due to high on base percentage and thus increasing
>his ranking while the 3 and 4 guys knock him increasing his ranking as well.
>By giving guys who hit in number 1-5 slots a higher ranking a good idea
>because they are better players (Either Sluggers or people who get on base
>a lot) as compared to hiters in 6-9 slots.  Do you ever wonder why Pat
>Borders and Manny Lee hit 8 and 9.  It is because they are not a good of
>hitters as Alomar, Carter and Winfield so it is logical to give them a
>lower ranking.  

The reasoning here is all backwards, David.  The fact that the stat is
dependent on where you are in the order is *bad*, not *good*.  Don't
you remember saying how you wanted it stat that didn't depend so much
on who batted around you?  (Don't you remember why you wanted to use
something other than RBI?) That goal just go out the window, because
now you're saying you want to reward the top of the order.

Think about it:  The 1-4 guys are there because they are good; they
aren't good because they are batting in the 1-4 slots!

     ----Jon Hamkins  (hamkins@uiuc.edu)
         University of Illinios
         Urbana, IL
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: CZ94 <CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA>
Subject: Mediots (was Re: Value of Stats)
Organization: McGill University
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 17:59:37 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.022226.15851@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca> 91287041@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (roger maynard) writes:
>
>In Canada, The Globe and Mail has employed several well-respected journalists
>in their "Sport" section, notably Allen Able in the past and Stephen Brunt at
>present.  And whatever Marty York may be, he certainly cannot be accused of
>building up any kind of netork, schmooze or otherwise.  I don't think that
>any of Toronto's professional sports teams will allow him into their dressing
>rooms.                                                                 f

Marty York's occasional coverage of the Expos is almost always
laughable.  He solemnly reported, as news, the return of hair to
Expo broadcaster Dave Van Horne's once-bald scalp, a *full year*
after the miraculous event had occurred.  He once wrote a column
predicting the Expos probable September call-ups a few days *after*
the call-ups had been made.  Even then, he didn't manage to
predict (postdict?) the right names.  York often quotes anonymous
"sources" in the Expos clubhouse, so he must be doing some sort of
network-building (unless you're suggesting he just makes everything
up).

Tom Box
CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA
From: mcmath@csb1.nlm.nih.gov (Chuck McMath)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Simulation Games
Date: 23 Jul 92 19:46:43 GMT
Followup-To: rec.sport.baseball
Organization: MSD

In article <36001@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, demers@cs.ucsd.edu (David DeMers)
wrote:
> 
> In article <QePOu0i00Uh7M1JNxs@andrew.cmu.edu> tf0y+@andrew.cmu.edu (Todd Harris Fletcher) writes:
> >What is the best board simulation game?  APBA? Strat-o-Matic? Persue the
> >Pennant? Why do you think that?
> 
> I like Strato over APBA, more because of realism and playability -
> there are some things APBA just can't do (same for Strato too,
> but less, IMO), and strato is really simple to play since
> most plays don't need the charts.
> 
> I haven't played PTP, but rumor is that it's the best.
> Don't know what might make it better.


I'm in APBA (Computer) and PTP (Board) leagues, and one big difference
between them is the way they handle L vs R matchups.  PTP uses the actual
left/right pitching/batting stats on their cards, whereas APBA uses a
'platoon factor'.

For example, take Jerome Walton.  He batted .195 vs LHP and .239 vs RHP. 
His PTP card reflects this, in that he gets more hits vs. RHP.  They also
have separate ratings for power vs. each pitcher type (Walton has NO
homeruns vs LHP and a few under RHP).  The same is true for pitchers - take
Curt Young.  He allowed LHB to bat .212 while RH batters did .312 against
him.  He also gave up fewer home runs to LH batters.  All this is reflected
in his card.  APBA, on the other hand, rates a player - say Walton - with a
particular set of batting statistics, and then, for example, would give him
a '1' platoon factor (don't know if that's the actual number, I don't have
that info here).  That means when facing a pitcher throwing the same way he
bats (i.e., R vs R) they reduce the chance of a hit, etc (I don't know how
this is done, since it's done on the computer).  I don't know how this
affects power either, but I expect that they decrease it.

APBA makes a big deal about how you can't accurately model L-R differences
based on such few samples as a normal batter has over the course of a
season.  I don't know if that's true or not, but if I understand it
correctly, the APBA technique is flawed also - for instance, I don't
understand how they rate switch hitters who bat much better/worse one way
than the other.  The ones I've all seen have a platoon factor of 0.  Plus I
don't know how they account for players who hit BETTER vs a pitcher who
throws from the same side as they bat (don't know of this type of batter
exists, but I'd be willing to bet somebody out there is like that!).

I'm finding that I like the tactile sensation of playing the board game as
opposed to using the computer.  Tho for playing a large number of games,
the computer is quite nice for keeping track of stuff!

chuck


|- chuck mcmath - mcmath@csb1.nlm.nih.gov - MSD, Inc. ------------|
|- National Library of Medicine - National Institutes of Health --|
|- Bethesda, MD 20894 ------------ C++ causes cancer -------------|
|- "Hey batter, hey batter, hey batter, swing" - Anon. -----------|
From: tamsun.tamu.edu!rlm7638@overmind.mind.org
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: All-Nightmare Teams
Date: 22 Jul 92 20:51:00 GMT
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station
X-mailer: Stadel 3.4a-227
X-Spam-content: irrelevant

Harold Brooks writes:
>
>                National League  [worst players]
>                  BA      SLG      OBA      AB    RC/27
>HUNDLEY,T    C  .186     .339     .250     177     2.81
>DASCENZO,D  OF  .231     .280     .284     182     2.79   *****
>LEWIS,D     OF  .225     .263     .296     240     2.71
>KING,J      3B  .187     .311     .228     219     2.35
>SALAZAR,L   OF  .203     .275     .244     153     2.27   *****
>VIZCAINO,J  SS  .203     .264     .239     231     2.14   *****
>GALARRAGA,A 1B  .186     .276     .230     156     2.11
>CANDAELE,C  2B  .180     .223     .229     206     1.68
>Totals          .201     .277     .247             2.32
>                         

      I notice three Cubs in this lineup. Cubs have the best (last I
heard) pitching staff, from the ERA standpoint. I a glad to say that
two of these three players are out of their starting lineup for a
while, and the third (Doug Dascenzo) was almost hitting .300 just a
few weeks ago, but he'll be out of the lineup when Sosa gets back.
If these Cubs would start hitting, we might win the division twice in
as many decades.

+----------------------------------------------+--------------------------+
| "Near the Day of Purification, there will be | Jack McKinney            |
|    cobwebs spun back and forth in the sky."  | jmckinney@tamu.edu       |
+-------- -from the Hopi prophecy -------------+--------------------------+
From: msw10@nepenthe.as (Michael S. Wong)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Need More Giants Postings
Date: 27 Jul 92 17:57:28 GMT
Reply-To: msw10@nepenthe.as
Organization: Sun Microsystems


In article 4200319@hpcc01.corp.hp.com, boell@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Donald P Boell) writes:
>Can't judge Mitchell's possible performance in the NL by his AL numbers.
>Different pitchers, different umps, different strike zone...no one can
>say what he may have done.  We will know next year if he is washed up
>given that he has no intention of returning to Seattle.

Maybe not even that long. Mitchell's power numbers are still non-existent but he 
has hit over .350 for the last 6 weeks.

Michael Wong.
msw10@nepenthe.ras.amdahl.com
From: grabiner@math.harvard.edu (David Grabiner)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Value of Stats
Date: 27 Jul 92 20:07:59 GMT
Organization: Harvard University Dept. of Mathematics
In-reply-to: a_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu's message of 27 Jul 92 18:48:21 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.124822.256@ccsvax.sfasu.edu>, a writes:

> In article <1992Jul26.181556.1714@panix.com>, spira@panix.com (Greg "Sarcasm Is A Way Of Life" Spira) writes:
>> I don't claim that RC/27 is a perfect stat - there is no such thing - but
>> it gives you a reasonable idea of player performance because it places what
>> the player does in context.

> 	It certianly doesn't see to be, though I am arguing from ignorance
> here. If RC/27 is adjusted for *teams* runs scored, then I don't see a gaping
> hole.  If, on the other hand, the team's overall performance doesn't come into
> play, then the stat is severely flawed. If the latter is true, ignore the next
> paragraph.

> 	For example, take player A and B, two full-time players from two 
> different teams. A has a RC/27 of 7, and B has a RC/27 of 8, then this would 
> seem to indicate that player B is slightly better. However, if player A's 
> team scored only 500 runs for the season, and player B's scored 750, it would
> seem that player A is actually better, adjusting for the team.

You are correct in looking for context, but this isn't the correct
context.  If player A is actually a better hitter than player B, then
trading the players should improve B's team, but that may not be the
case here.  The difference *could* be related to park effects, but it
could equally well be that A's team has a terrible offense.  If this is
the case, Player A would probably have the same 7 RC/27 on B's team, and
assuming full-time play (405 outs), would decrease B's team runs by 15.
Likewise, A's team would score 15 more runs if B replaced A.  I think
this means that B is the better hitter.

The correct context is the *league* average; a hitter who had 5 RC/27 in
1968 would be a very good hitter, as good as one with 6 RC/27 today.  

It is also possible to adjust RC/27 for park effects; if there are 600
runs scored (by both teams) in Dodger home games and 700 in Dodger road
games, then a hitter with 5 RC/27 playing half his games in Dodger
Stadium is a better hitter than one with 5 RC/27 elsewhere.

> 	Could someone post the formula for RC/27, BTW?

RC is A*B/C, and RC/27 is RC*27/(Outs).

A=H+BB+HBP-CS-GIDP, representing runners on base.
B=TB+.26(BB-IBB+HBP)+.52(SB+SH+SF), representing advancement of runners.
C=AB+BB+HBP+SH+SF, representing opportunities.

Outs=AB-H+SH+SF+CS+GIDP.

--
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.