HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fester@island.COM (Mike Fester)
Subject: Re: RC/27 for CFs
Organization: /usr/local/rn/organization
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 16:19:34 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.192004.7787@cbnews.cb.att.com> dae@cbnews.cb.att.com (david.a.elliott) writes:
>
>>He had one good year in the high minors, he makes lots of errors for a part-
>>time player, he's got 2 HR in almost 600 major league ABS, and a career BA of
>>below .245 (and he's worse than that this year), he's 5 for 11 in SB, and
>>has a lower OBP than McRae. Looks like he really has shown what he's capable
>>of doing; it's just not very much.
>
>Thurman was 15/20 last year in SB, and had an excellent SB record in the
>minors (far better than McRae's).  He's been lousy this year, but he's been
>used in pinch running/obvious steal situations a lot, so I don't think it
>means too much.
>
>He's every bit as fast as McRae (maybe faster), but he's not as good of a
>defender.  He has zero power, but he had several good years in the minors
>in terms of getting on base.
>
>When you consider their skills and demonstrated track record, I'd rate them
>equivalent players.  Neither one is a major league starter.

Which is rather the point; you can't criticize a manager for playing one
bad player when his only available alternatives are as bad or worse.

Mazeroski's '92 Baseball Guide indicates that the Royals have a legitimate
prospect in there farm system: Darren Burton. Here's what they say:

"A five-tool propect, he reminds some scouts of a young Andy Van Slyke. Burton,
19, showed gap power and speed last season (.263, 32 2B, 2 HR, 51 RBIs, 37 SB)
and eventually could have 15-20 homer power. He's a legitimate centerfielder
and has the arm strength for right field."

He was in class A last year. Any word on how he's doing this year?

Mike
-- 
Disclaimer - These opiini^H^H damn! ^H^H ^Q ^[ .... :w  :q  :wq  :wq! ^d  X ^?
exit X Q  ^C ^? :quitbye  CtrlAltDel   ~~q  :~q  logout  save/quit :!QUIT
^[zz ^[ZZZZZZ ^H  man vi ^@  ^L  ^[c  ^# ^E ^X ^I ^T ? help  helpquit ^D  ^d 
man help ^C ^c help exit ?Quit ?q CtrlShftDel "Hey, what does this button d..."
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: cjlee@cayley.uwaterloo.ca (Ironman)
Subject: Re: Wow, Cito changes the Jays' lineup!
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 16:54:22 GMT

In article steinman@me.utoronto.ca (David Steinman) writes:
>>Check out the starting lineup for July 26, 1992:
>
>>1.	ALOMAR		2B	<- Finally!  Alomar bats leadoff!
>>2.	GRIFFIN		SS	<- Lee would have been a better choice
>>3.	CARTER		1B	<- Hey, Carter is playing first base!!!
>>4.	WINFIELD	DH	<- no change, good.
>>5.	MALDONADO	LF	<- good
>>6.	GRUBER		3B	<- batting .230, 8HR... (a strike-out man)
>>7.	BORDERS		C	<- ok... batting .240, 9HR...
>>8.	BELL		CF	<- Finally gets some playing time
>>9.	DUCEY		RF	<- He should play 1B while Carter should
>>				   remain in RF...  ah well..
>
>Yeah, some lineup.  Really produced those runs...

Sure, it might have worked if Carter and Winfield didn't go 0 for...
BTW, did Gruber get on base (I didn't watch the game)?  Does anyone know 
how many WINS the Jays have with "Gruber in the lineup" and how many
"without Gruber in the lineup"?  Sports analysts often do this
to show how important a player is to his team.

Anyways, as you know, one game doesn't determine anything.  I say Cito should
experiment with the same lineup again on Tuesday, with some modifications:

1.	ALOMAR		2B
2.	LEE		SS
3.	CARTER		RF
4.	WINFIELD	DH
5.	MALDONADO	LF
6.	KENT		1B (if both Olerud and Tabler are injured)
7.	BORDERS		C
8.	GRUBER		3B (use Kent if Olerud is playing)
9.	BELL		CF (or White)


Jack
From: dtate+@pitt.edu (David M Tate)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Mays, Morgan, & Pinson
Date: 27 Jul 92 14:22:17 GMT
Organization: Factors of Ys, Inc.

In article <2184710@overmind.citadel> bc@overmind.mind.org writes:
>
>  (Indeed, the 1969 outfield of Flood, Brock, & Pinson must have 
>  made it nearly impossible to hit a ball in the gap). 

This is a common misconception that is becoming more and more widespread
as time erases the memories of those who saw Brock play.  Truth be told,
Lou Brock was a lot closer to Lonnie Smith in defensive prowess than he was
to Curt Flood.  Lonnie's another guy who was very fast on the bases but not
any kind of fielder at all.  Vince Coleman is another.

>    Y'all know about Joe Morgan and Willie Mays, both Hall of Famers. 
>  It's not for me to decided who gets in and who doesn't, but I 
>  really enjoyed seeing Pinson play when he was with the Reds with 
>  a pretty good combination of speed and power.  The HOF voters 
>  draw their own lines, not I, but I feel he is one of the ten best 
>  players eligible for the HOF who is not in. 

True.  Had he played a middle-infield position, as Morgan did, he'd be a
shoo-in, even with his drastic decline.  Outfielders face a bit more in the
way of competition.

>    Obviously, from the comparisons above he didn't walk worth a 
>  damn and, thus, had a fairly poor on-base percentage.  

This is a very important point, but is almost surely not why he wasn't 
inducted before now.  The BBWAA voters don't know from OBP.

>    There seem to be a lot of guys who are pretty good for 10 years 
>  then either just disappear or never play up to that level again. 
>  Raines & LeFlore are two who come to mind immediately.  

In the case of LeFlore, didn't it come out that he was really several years
older than he had claimed?  If I remember correctly, his post-prison baseball
career didn't really start until he was 26 or 27, which would explain why he
didn't last as long as one might have hoped.


-- 
        David Tate         |  "Complacencies of the fungo, and late 
  dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu  |   Infield and B.P. in a sunny field
     "Sunday Afternoon"    |   [...]         mingle to dissipate
  Wallace "Vern" Stevens   |   The holy hush of Pastime National..."
From: aardvark@locus.com (Warren Usui)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Value of Stats
Date: 27 Jul 92 23:31:59 GMT
Organization: Locus Computing Corporation, Los Angeles, California

In article <1992Jul27.200202.15313@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca> 91287041@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (roger maynard) writes:
>In <1992Jul27.153614.27645@adobe.com> snichols@adobe.com (Sherri Nichols) writes:
>
>>.  Ernie Banks never got a World Series ring.  Ted Williams
>>never got a World Series ring.  Does that make Kirby Puckett a better
>>player than Ted Williams?  Is Mickey Hatcher a better player than Ted Williams?
>
>I think we have had this dance before.  Mickey Hatcher?  
>

Everybody knows that Mickey Hatcher was lucky enough to play on the
same team as Alfredo Griffin.

-- 
Warren Usui
aardvark@locus.com
uunet!lcc!aardvark
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: 91287041@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (roger maynard)
Subject: Re: R.S.BB FAQ V 1.01 (LU: 7/26/92) NEED HELP!!!!!!!
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Laurentian University, Sudbury, ON
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 21:06:56 GMT

In <btlm_0@lynx.unm.edu> kbos@carina.unm.edu (Kurt Bose "of Biscayzee") writes:

>GETTING ALONG WITH OTHER PEOPLE ON R.S.BB

>[I'm just going to snip this section from a few FAQs and tweak it, OK?  Anyone
>else have any suggestions???]

I can give you a copy of my kill file if you like...

rm

-- 
roger maynard                    
91287041@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: snichols@adobe.com (Sherri Nichols)
Subject: Re: Value of Stats
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 23:13:16 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.200202.15313@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca> 91287041@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (roger maynard) writes:
>I think we have had this dance before.  Mickey Hatcher?  

Proud possessor of a World Series ring, unlike Ted Williams.

>IF, going into an infinite series, two teams were statistically equal - very 
>big IF - AND one team was to win a significantly greater amount of games than 
>the other team, you would attribute the total difference to luck.  I would 
>attribute some of that difference to luck and some of that difference to
>the slippery essence of all human endeavors.  No, I don't know what that essence
>is nor do I know how to measure it.  When people talk about character or
>attitude they are trying to describe it.  I can't do much better than
that. 

What's the difference between the "slippery essence of all human endeavors"
and "luck"?  Seriously.  

Sherri Nichols
snichols@adobe.com
From: jawad@ecst.csuchico.edu (Jawad Ali)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Help! I've logged on and I can't get off :-)
Date: 23 Jul 1992 04:58:14 -0500
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu


-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Salam alaikum to the "Pakistan zindabad" contingent, and greetings to
all cricket fans from the twisted world of the Pakistan Affairs Desk
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry folks, there is no pre game show today.  Heck, there may not
even be a show today.  The radio went ot the beach with me last
weekend and was treated to sand, salt water, direct sunlight and all the
other good things the manual would have prohibited (i.e. if this
thing had come with a manual)

Less than half an hour left before the game.  I have mortgaged my soul
to the devil to be able to continue with this 'commentary'.  This puts
a lot of pressure on our boys at Headingly, since they now have no
choice but to put on a great show, which is exactly what the Desk is
predicting. Since Shamim will not be bringing back eye witness reports
this time, the contents of the play-by-play may be subject to greater
.... shall we say... poetic lisence.  I'll do my best to capture the
sights and sounds of Headingly as things unfold.

I *just* drove back from San Francisco and quickly sifted through the
rsc posts for the last week (I am not cought up yet).  There was a
curious post by Murali that suggested that the average-inflation-proof
-is-in-the-numbers discussion turned ugly in my absence.  What did you
guys do?  I'm only missing about three days worth,  but Murali's plea
for sucession of hostilities seems to suggest that the two camps duked
it out with personal insults.  Damn! 

Anyhow, no time for ugliness.  The game is about to begin.

j n a




Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: s1172217@giaec.cc.monash.edu.au (Mark Smith)
Subject: LBW law
Organization: Monash University College Gippsland, Churchill, 3842, Australia
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 07:00:46 GMT

The law is law 36, I will quote it here in its entirerity.

LAW 36  Leg Before Wicket

1. Out LBW
The striker shalll be out LBW in the circumstances set out below:

  a) Striker attempting to play the ball

  The striker shall be out LBW if he first intercepts with any part of his
  person, dress or equipment a fair ball which would have hit the wicket and
  which has not previously touched his bat or a hand holding the bat, provided
  that:
    i) The ball pitched in a straight line between wicket and wicket or on the
    off side of the striker's wicket, or in the case of a ball intercepted
    full pitch would have pitched in line between wicket and wicket; and
    ii) The point of impact is in a straight line between wicket and wicket,
    even if above the level of the bails.

  b) Striker making no attempt to play the ball
  The striker shall be out LBW even if the ball is intercepted outside the
  line of the off stump if, in the opinion of the umpire, he has made no
  genuine attempt to play the ball with his bat, but has intercepted the ball
  with the same part of his person and if the circumstances set out in (a)
  above apply.

Quoted from the 1992 edition of Wisden.

Mark.

Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: shamim@.bellcore.com (Shamim Naqvi,MRE-2E342,829-4813,,21272)
Subject: Re: England 2nd Innings
Reply-To: shamim@.bellcore.com
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Morristown, NJ
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 18:29:53 GMT

In article 21825@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU,  aam9n@hagar1.acc.Virginia.EDU (Ali Ahmad Minai) writes:
>However, the call for neutral umpires by Imran and the BCCP was motivated
>at least as much by complaints about our umpiring as dissatisfaction with
>the umpiring of other countries. In a sense, we wished to neutralize the
>allegation that we won at home because of our umpires. My fear is that,
>as we suffer at the hands of umpires abroad, we might be tempted to give
>up and go back to the old ways. There will certainly be public pressure on
>the BCCP to do so.
As there was for the NZ tour to Pakistan. Recall that the BCCP had
announced third country umpires when Crowe put his foot in his mouth
and that was that.  It is going ot be increasingly hard for Pakistan to
wage this battle and take work away from Pakistani umpires. 
English umpires do not rely as much on tests for their incomes (they
have county and OD cricket) whereas Pakistani umpires by and large only
make money from test matches.

Two years ago when Gooch was LBW to Terry Alderman in almost every innings, 
I heard several people making the preposterous claim that English umpires were so
fair that sometimes visiting teams got the advantage over England. 
It is instructive to compare the number of times Gooch has been LBW to Alderman and 
to Waqar,  who bowls at least as straight, if not straighter, than Alderman. 
(For example, look at Waqar's stats for number of batsmen bowled or LBW.) 

>
>A sense of superiority is certainly most of it. I'm just not sure 
>it is "racist". Also, all of us --- you and I included --- have a sense
>of superiority in some way. Of course, we do not think it "misplaced",
>but others might. The way to counter the TCCB is not by raising slogans
>of "racism" but by thwarting it strategically. As I said, the importance
>of TCCB in the ICC is diminishing. With a few well-organized moves, it
>can be put in its place --- the cricket board of one of nine test playing
>countries. No more.
> 
Only if the ICC agrees to take away the veto power of Australia and England. 
That decision is supposed to be debated next year. 

BTW,  as an example of another brainless piece of legislation, the 
ICC match referee is to be paid out of the fines levied during the test match. 

		--SAN
From: gnoone@spam.ua.oz (Greg Noone)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Re: LBW rules: Expert Opinion needed
Keywords: LBW
Date: 23 Jul 92 00:53:02 GMT
Organization: Statistics, Pure & Applied Mathematics, University of Adelaide

In article <7877@sirius.ucs.adelaide.edu.au> dlow@sirius.ucs.adelaide.edu.au.ua.oz (David J Low) writes:
>From article <1992Jul21.173240.23418@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu>, by aksimha@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Arun Simha):

>     2) did the ball pitch outside off stump?  If YES then (i), else 3)
>          (i) did the batsman play a shot?  If YES then NOTOUT else 3)
>
>     3) would the ball have hit the stumps?  If YES then OUT else NOTOUT.

The ball can pitch outside the off-stump and the batsmen still be given out LBW
provided the ball struck the pad in line with the stumps. If the ball actually
had to pitch in line with the stumps then there would be much fewer lbw
descisions since for a ball to pitch in line with the stumps and then to hit the
stumps would have to be a fairly straight delivery most of the times (although
obviously not always). A good example of this is Terry Alderman bowling in
England. He'd bowl a few outswingers and then nip in an off-cutter that would
definately pitch outside the off-stump but strike the batsmen in-line with the
stumps. Many English batsmen were out in this manner, especially Gooch. So much
so that there were graffitti signs in England which read `Gooch LBW Alderman 0'
and also `Thatcher LBW Alderman 0'.
--
Greg Noone gnoone@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au

[All opinions are my own except those which aren't]
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: sagrawal@us.oracle.com (Sanjay Agrawal)
Subject: 3rd day of 4th test (after lunch)
Originator: sagrawal@dvlseq.us.oracle.com
Organization: Oracle Corporation, Redwood Shores, California
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 13:06:40 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

England are now 304 for 6. After lunch Ramprakash was trapped lbw by
Mushtaq, while Hick was yorked (yet again!) by Waqar Younis for 1.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: tom@cs.su.oz.au (Thomas James Jones)
Subject: Re: R.S.C.Scores be used more frequently
Reply-To: tom@cs.su.oz.au
Organization: Basser Department of Computer Science
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 00:14:20 GMT

In article <9220709.23293@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>, kre@cs.mu.oz.au (Robert Elz) writes:
|> In <1992Jul24.015247.11410@cs.su.oz.au> tom@cs.su.oz.au (Thomas James Jones) writes:
|> 
|> | 	The fact is that there are two groups, based on a fairly natural
|> | 	and even distinction (scores vrs discussion),
|> 
|> But that's not what r.s.c.s was created for .. if it was to be used for
|> posting frequent score updates it will have totally violated its charter
|> and should be removed.
|> 
|> Its purpose was, and is, infrequent (eg; daily for tests, end of match for
|> others) reports of matches, so people who just want accurate scores from
|> time to time have somewhere to look, and also so they can be archived.
|> 
|> Which is also why its a moderated group.
|> 
|> kre

	I was not aware of this.  If this is the case then I think
	it is unfortunate, but it does invalidate the suggestions
	that I was supporting.

	tom
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: aamir@cs.sfu.ca (Aamir Husain)
Subject: Pak vs Eng T4
Keywords: Pakistan back in
Organization: CSS, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 13:24:52 GMT

Morning to all North American netters, with the news
that pakistan are fighting back.
England a few moments ago were 310/8

the fall ofw wkts since lunch

ramprakash - 0 
hick       - 1
lewis      - 0
pringle    - 0

gower is 10 no
mallander is 1 no

waqar i hink took three of those wkts and mushtaq one

more later, aamir

Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: aamir@cs.sfu.ca (Aamir Husain)
Subject: Pak vs ENg T4
Keywords: 20 mins before lunch D3
Organization: CSS, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 11:41:26 GMT

England are 290/2

gooch 129 no - one 6 and 18 4's
stewart 7 no

smith the man out= 42 ct javed b aquib

new ball still not taken. 
Aamir
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: ramana@unislc.uucp (Ramana Ramachandran)
Subject: Double Internationals
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Organization: Unisys Corporation SLC
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 16:58:35 GMT

The other day I heard that kapil is playing for east bengal in soccer 
which made me think how many cricketers have represented their country
in another sport?

	One named gopalan (?) represented India in both hockey and cricket.
	Iam not sure of the name but the "gopal" part of it is definite!

	Also I remember charlesworth of Australia (I suppose hockey fans
	would know him better) playing for western australia and thus does not
	qualify as a double international.

Please add more...

ramana ramachandran
ramana@unislc.slc.unisys.com
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: mkyeddan@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Murali Yeddanapudi)
Subject: info needed
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 17:49:46 GMT

Hello netters, 
               Does someone remember the breathtaking one-day match
(IND-PAK) at Sharjah, in which Miandad hit a sixer off the last ball
from Chethan Sharma ? I was wondering if PAK needed only 4 runs off the
last ball or more in order to win. Could someone post the info ? Thanks
in advance.

vijay


Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: gkb1@chempc1.york.ac.uk (Graham Barlow)
Subject: Test Score
Organization: University of York, UK
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 13:35:58 GMT

Time: 14:32

Pakistan 38 for 1 Play has resumed following light but
persistant rain.

Sorry that's all I know as someone has 'borrowed' my radio.

Graham

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Graham Barlow                      Internet gkb1@chempc1.york.ac.uk
NMR Service                              or gkb1@tower.york.ac.uk
Department of Chemistry             JANET   gkb1@uk.ac.york
University of York, UK                                
__________________________________________________________________________________
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: kre@cs.mu.oz.au (Robert Elz)
Subject: Re: Neutral Umpires ---> Pick your own !
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 14:26:57 GMT

In <9207280902.AA21367@vassal.cm.cf.ac.uk>
Carl.M.Jones@cm.cf.ac.uk (Carl Jones) writes:

| I am not Pakistan bashing, you may substitute any teams you like, and 
| change the names used, but the principle will still be the same. 

| So think of the consequences before calling for change!

Another example, from an unrelated sport ...

In the Olympics, now going on, in women's field hockey, yesterday
(that is, last night Aust time), Aust played Canada, one of the umpires
was from South Korea.  Sounds like almost an ideal neutral umpire.

Now I know nothing about hockey, even less about umpiring, and what's
more, to the best of my knowledge there have been no comments made by
anyone about the umpiring there, but if Aust had lost the match, and
there had been some disputed umpiring decisions, may Aust have been able
to claim (probably incorrectly, but remember all this is hypothetical)
that the umpire wasn't truly neutral, as in the previous olympics Aust
had beaten Korea in the final?

Aust won that match, and the umpiring was probably perfect (as I said,
I wouldn't know one way or the other) so the issue simply didn't arise,
but it does point out that finding an umpire that everyone, in all
situations, is truly regarded as neutral is not at all easy.  Just
coming from some other country doesn't do it.

Note - this isn't an argument against neutral umpires, just showing
that the benefit (one benefit anyway) that is hoped to be gained might
not really be there.

kre
From: srd@ukc.ac.uk (S.R.Davies)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Re: Field Hockey
Date: 29 Jul 92 12:04:54 GMT
Reply-To: srd@ukc.ac.uk (S.R.Davies)
Organization: Computing Lab, University of Kent at Canterbury, UK.

In article <1992Jul27.154538.3866@seas.gwu.edu> ahmad@seas.gwu.edu (Aftab Ahmad) writes:
>
>	The news for field_hockey barely reaches here.
>	We don't have a news group for it too.
>	I will appreciate if someone keeps posting Pakistan's
>	situation in field hockey for the duration of Olypmics.
>
>	Sorry to those offended by this post :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) .

     My only objection is to the name Field Hockey. The game is called
 Hockey. I presume that Field Hockey is another Americanism that the
 rest of the world is supposed to meekly accept. We should counter this
 by inventing our own stupid names for American sports, such as Indoor
 Netball and Field Wrestling and see how they like it.

     Pakistan beat New Zealand 1-0 in the Olympics by the way. 
 Imran Khan scored the only goal of the match.

     Right, now lets get back to discussing Field Cricket.

 Regards, Steve.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: sagrawal@cco.caltech.edu (Sanjay Kumar Agrawal)
Subject: D4 T4 (Tea)
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 14:46:09 GMT

England are 42 for 2. Gooch 26*, Gower 6*.
From: rajeev@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com (Rajeev Menon)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 16:48:48 GMT
Subject: Pak 80/5 at Headingley
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Santa Rosa, CA