waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
boone@psc.edu (Jon Boone) writes:  >On Mon, 12 Apr 93 00:53:14 GMT in <<1993Apr12.005314.5700@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>> Greg Spira (gspira@nyx.cs.du.edu) wrote:  >:>Does anybody in the Pittsburgh area know why Mike LaValliere was released? >:>Last year I kept saying that Slaught should get the bulk of the playing time, >:>that he was clearly the better player at this point, but Leyland insisted on >:>keeping a pretty strict platoon.  And now he is released?  That doesn't >:>make any sense to me.  >Greg,  >    The story goes like this:  >       Spanky is too slow!  If he were quicker, he would still be here. >But with Slaught and Tom Prince, they didn't want to lose Prince in order >to bring up that 11th pitcher.  Slaught is about as good as Spanky and >Prince is coming along nicely!  Well, my question still hasn't been answered: if Spanky was bad enough to release this year, why did he get so much playing time last year?  Yes, I know he was part of a platoon, and that's why he got more playing time than Slaught, but that doesn't answer the question.  If Slaught was so obviously better this year, wasn't this also obvious last year, and shouldn't he have been taking away some of Spanky's playing time against righties?
In article <1993Apr14.173428.12056@Princeton.EDU>, roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes: >   > >In article <1993Apr13.115313.17986@bsu-ucs>, 00mbstultz@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu  > >     writes... >  > >>I've recently been working on project to determine the greatest > >>players at their respective postions.   >  > >>2B  Career                           What about U. Johnny Hodapp, the greatest 2nd baseman in Cleveland Indians history?  225 hits in 1930, consistantly over .300.  A great, great second baseman.
ecaxron@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Ron Graham) writes:  >I think that, everything else being equal, it's not too much to ask that >if a weeknight game can be shortened by half-an-hour by cutting out warmup >pitches, dawdling outside the batter's box, commerical time-outs and that >sort of thing, I'm not asking for too much.  How do you know they can be shortened by half-an-hour?  Has anybody done a study to determine how much time is actually "wasted" -- say, in these A's games?
In article <9460@blue.cis.pitt.edu> dtate+@pitt.edu (David M. Tate) writes: >kubey@sgi.com (Ken Kubey) said: > >>And finally, I'd like to point out that many high OBP guys draw  >>their walks more because pitchers are afraid to throw a strike >>to them, than because they have a great "eye" > >I'm not sure.  I used to think this was true, but more and more I'm becoming >convinced that it's the other way around: among players with the physical >ability to hit the ball real hard, the patient ones are the ones who get the >chance to do it a lot. > >Let's break down the four basic categories of hitter, according to whether >they are power threats and whether they walk a lot: > > >			Power			No Power > >	Patient		Frank Thomas		Brett Butler >			Barry Bonds		Ozzie Smith >			Mark McGwire		Craig Grebeck >			Babe Ruth		Miller Huggins >			Ted Williams		Billy Hamilton >			Rickey Henderson	Eddie Joost >			Joe Morgan		Mike Hargrove >			   .			   . >			   .			   . >			   .			   . > >	Impatient	Ernie Banks		Ozzie Guillen >			Dave Kingman		Shawon Dunston >			Joe Carter		Andres Thomas >			George Bell		Jose Lind >			Kirby Puckett		Devon White  Okay, I think we all agree that singles hitters should take a strike or two and try to get on base any way they can.  So the "No Power/Impatient" guys have no excuse. The "No Power/Patient" guys are doing the right thing.  Now the "Impatient/Power" guys (how could you leave out the Big Cat?). Would these guys have a better slugging percentage if they took more pitches?   Perhaps, but I doubt it.  If you tell Joe Carter to go up there and take a few pitches, he will draw more walks, but he also won't hit as many frozen ropes into the bleachers because he is more likely to hold back on a pitch that he used to drive.  The "Patient/Power" guys?   Joe Morgan had a small strike zone and Rickey Henderson has "a strike zone the size of Hitler's heart"  so they get their walks based on the small zone.  Look at the other 5 guys: Thomas, Bonds, McGwire, Ruth and Williams.  Wow! A lot of pitchers would rather nibble at the corners and maybe walk these guys that to throw a clear strike to them. The pitchers would do better (in my opinion) by just coming after them with a good fastball for a strike on the first pitch, but pitchers would rather nibble, go 2-0 or 3-1 and then get hurt.
Buck Showalter just can't win.   Bob Wickman's pitching the game of his life through eight innings (Yanks lead 6-1), so Buck decides to let the kid try and get his first complete game. Wickman manages to get two outs, but in between, four funs score, and all of a sudden it's 6-5, and Wickman just can't get the third out. So Buck goes to the bullpen, and Farr gets out the first guy he faces.  Last night, Jimmy Key is pitching another in a long string of games of his life (this guy just keeps getting better!) through eight innings (Yanks lead 4-0). This time, Buck thinks, "I don't want a repeat of that near-fiasco with Wickman, so I'll give my bullpen some work." Steve Howe, whose ERA was 54.00 coming into the game, left with it at 81.00. He didn't do too good. Then Farr comes in. He gives up a two-run homer, and the Royals win it, 6-5.  What's going on? This is already the third or fourth time this year that the bullpen has blown a lead. Farr & Howe have done it twice together, Monteleone's done it once, and I think even Habyan did it once. What's the deal? We finally have terrific starting pitching, so all of a sudden, our bullpen turns to shit!  What's Buck gonna do? And what's George gonna do if this continues to happen?
In article <93095@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt7469a@prism.gatech.EDU (Brian R. Landmann) writes:   > >Joe Torre has to be the worst manager in baseball. >brian, a very distressed cardinal fan. >--   No....Hal McRae is the worst manager in baseball.  I've never seen a guy who can waste talent like he can.  One of the best raw-talent staffs in the league, and he's still finding a way to lose.  I'll be surprised if he makes it through the next 2 weeks, unless drastic improvement is made.
In article <1993Apr23.151050.8995@sctc.com> macomber@sctc.com (Chuck Macomber) writes: > >TWINS UPDATE --  Posted April 22, 1993   >--------------------------------------------- >Jim Deshaies continues to be the surprise of not only the Twins, but of >the American League as well.  Going into today's game, Deshaies was 3-0 >with a 1.74 ERA.  Deshaies allowed 2 Earned runs in 6 2/3 innings, meaning >his ERA will climb slightly.  Deshaies, who came to MN via a trade with >Philadelphia which sent David West there, continues to make Andy MacPhail >look like a true genius. > Minor correction: Hartley came in the West trade to Phily.  Deshaies signed as a free agent ($1.7M over 2 years).  He pitched for San Diego last year. --  Regards,
In article <C5JC3z.KnD@news.udel.edu> philly@ravel.udel.edu (Robert C Hite) writes: >In article <1993Apr15.151202.3551@Virginia.EDU> jja2h@Virginia.EDU ("") writes: >>Does any one out there listen to WFAN?  For those of you who do >>not know what I am talking about, it is an all sports radio >>staion in New York.  On a clear night the signal reaches up and >>down the East coast.  In particular, I want to know how Len >>Berman and Mike Lupica's show is.  I go to school in Virginia >>so I can't listen when there are on during the day.  Just >>wondering.  You're right about the signal being strong. I live in West Philadelphia, and I can get FAN almost perfectly. It's a sports fans dream (especially if that person is from NY and wants to hear about his teams while he's away at school). As for Lupica & Berman, it's turned out to be Lupica, then Berman. Neither of them wanted to work a full four hour show, so Ed Coleman and Dave Sims' old four-hour slot was broken down into two seperate two-hour show - Lupica from 10-12, and Berman from 12-2. And they both happen to suck in comparison to Eddie and Dave.  COME BACK, GUYS!  > >The FAN is an okay Sports Radio station, but doesn't come close to >the ULTIMATE in Sports Radio, 610 WIP in Philadelphia.  The signal >might not be as powerful, but then again only stations in New York >feel "obligated" to pollute everyone else's airwaves with a bunch of >hoodlum Mets fans complaining 24 hours a day.  WIP took two of your >best sports jockeys too, Jody MacDonald and Steve Fredericks.  610 >WIP is rockin with sports talk from 5:30 AM till midnight, check it >out anytime your within a few hours of Philadelphia.  If I'm not >mistaken, WIP has the highest sports talk ratings in the nation? >  Like I said, I live in Philly, so I can hear FAN and/or WIP whenever I want. But I cannot stand WIP. And it isn't because I loathe the Philly sports teams - the Phillies are my favorite NL team (Yanks are favorite AL), and the Eagles aren't too bad either. There are two big problems:  	1)Total emphasis on the home teams, especially the Eagles. Unlike 	  the FAN hosts, who can at least answer a question about an 	  out-of-town team if a caller asks, the WIP hosts seem  	  to have no clue about any team that doesn't play on 	  Broad Street. Also, FANs periodic sports updates (every 20 	  minutes) gives sports news and scores from around the 	  country. It's very rare to hear an out-of-town score 	  being reported on WIP.  	2)The hosts. With the exception of Jody MacDonald, who I miss 	  from his days at FAN, none of the hosts really seems to have 	  both a broad knowledge of the sport or a good on-air presence. 	  The worst is Gary Cobb, who seems to have been hired solely 	  on the basis that he used to play for the Eagles.  Anyway, that's my two cents on the whole FAN vs WIP battle.
genetic+@pitt.edu (David M. Tate) writes:  >dwarner@journalism.indiana.edu said:  >>I only caught the tail end of this one on ESPN.  Does anyone have a report? >>(Look at all that Teal!!!!  BLEAH!!!!!!!!!)  >Maybe it's just me, but the combination of those *young* faces peeking out >from under oversized aqua helmets screams "Little League" in every fibre of >my being...  Hmm, it seems the Little Leaguers didn't do too badly against Hershiser, Strawberry, E. Davis, and the rest of the Dodgers yesterday ...   :-)
In article <C5ro4H.Lww@world.std.com> jle@world.std.com (Joe M Leonard) writes: >I always thought that a reasonable means of measuring value between >players was to attempt to determine if a team would trade one for >another.  The major problem with this analysis is that it ignores age.  Even if Morris were performing as well as Clemens right now, and were likely to this season, nobody would trade Clemens for Morris straight up because Clemens has more of his career left.
In article <kingoz.735066879@camelot>, kingoz@camelot.bradley.edu (Orin Roth) writes: >  >    Well, officially it's the Braves. At least up until they started winning >    it was. Are they still, officially?  >    If so, why? and how did they receive this label? >     >    Unoffically, but without a doubt, America's Team is the Cubs. Why? >    Well, my guess is because America loves underdogs. Every year, no matter >    the Cubs' talent or the predictions, they never (as close to never as >    possible) win anything. Over the years, as the losing has mounted, America >    has fallen in love with these perennial losers. The Cubs have more fans >    in Chicago then some teams do worldwide. The Cubs have more fans  >    worldwide than most of the teams in their division combined.  >    An aura of excitement surrounds the Cubs at the beginning of the season >    like no one else. (including the WS champs) It must be that Eternal Hope. >    "this is the year. they've got the talent. they're off to a good start. >     they've got the pitching (or hitting, or whatever their strong point is >     at the time)." It's that inevitability that the Cubs WILL eventually  >     win the WS again. When? Only God knows. Since it's been so long, it  >    could come at any time, or it could be another 85 years. But until they >    do finally win, and start winning consistently, The Cubs will remain >    America's Lovable Underdogs. The Cubs are...AMERICA'S TEAM. >    Orin. >    Bradley U> >  >  >   > -- > I'm really a jester in disguise!                                      	You are absolutely correct.  Braves fans are nothing but a bunch of bandwagoners.  Correct me if I am wrong, but 4 or 5 years ago you couldnt give away a ticket to see the Braves play.I  would bet my next paycheck that 80% of the so-called Braves fans living outside of Georgia at the present time can not name more than 3 players from their 1988 season. On the other hand, ask any Cubs fan living anywhere in the United States to name 3 players from any given year and 80% of them probably could. 	Granted, the fact that a team wins brings people to the ball park, but that does not mean they diserve the title "America's Team" 	The only reason they are considered America's team is because of Ted Turner and his little TV station which broadcasts across the nation. 	I'll consider Toronto AMerica's team before the Braves   	GO REDS!
Pitchers are required to pitch (or feint or attempt a pick-off) within 20 seconds after receiving the ball, not 15.  Pitchers are required to pitch their warm-up throws within a one minute time frame, beginning after each half inning ends, not two minutes.  And the reason why a reliever should be allowed warm-ups is simple: Different mound, different catcher.  Ryan Robbins Penobscot Hall University of Maine
In article <jxu.735398917@black.clarku.edu> jxu@black.clarku.edu (Dark Wing Duck!!) writes: >Last night, Boston Red Sox win its 11 games of 14 games by beating Seattle >5-2.  Roger Clemson pitch not so dominate.  He walked at least 6 man in >first 6 inns.  Be fair.  He did walk 6 batters in 6.1 IP.  He also allowed only three hits, none for extra bases.  Only one run.  A pretty good outing, all told.  >I think that game is must win for Red Sox in Seattle, considering Darwin will >faced Seattle ace Randy Johnson tonight.  There is no such thing as a "must win" game this early in the season. And we can always *hope* that Darwin pitches well!
fierkelab@bchm.biochem.duke.edu (Eric Roush) writes: >>>All of these divisions based on race, religion, etc. make me sick. >>As they should.  Isn't it nice that MLB is finally waking up to >>their existence?  Isn't it a shame that hiring practices, on and off >>the field, have been discriminatory for so long?  (Quick: name a >>light-hitting black outfielder or 1B who lasted 10+ years in the bigs. >>I bet you can name two dozen white ones.) >Otis Nixon. >Darnell Coles >Henry Cotto  Manny Mota. Billy Hatcher Herm Winningham. Lonnie Smith (not light hitting, but a horror in the field) Gary Redus Dion James Daryl Boston Vince Coleman (yeah, he's finally started to have a decent OBP) Cecil Espy Willie Wilson Gary Pettis Milt Thompson Gary Varsho  OK, I admit to taking a quick browse through the Major League Handbook, but only after the first 7 or 8. Oh, and there's the all-time light-hitting black outfielder: Lou Brock. Look it up. And Curt Flood. Cesar Geronimo. Cesar Cedeno.   >Note:  These guys may not have reached 10 years yet, but they've got >to be close.  Likewise for my list. Oh, and a prediction: Milt Cuyler.   Mike Jones | AIX High-End Development | mjones@donald.aix.kingston.ibm.com
I totally agree with each point you made.  Jose Viscaino looked like a single A hitter up there.  Who swings on 3-1 count with Maddux  pitching and your teams down by a run, and you haven't touched the ball all  day.  I also think too much is made of that lefty-righty thing.  Watching the Cubs games I get the feeling Steve Stone knows a lot more about what the Cubs should be doing than Lefebre does.  Harry said it best when he stated after another terrible Vizcaino at bat-- we can't wait til Sandberg returns!
Timothy Cree (timothy@lamar.ColoState.EDU) wrote: : In article <1993Apr22.192035.23822@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com> paula@koufax.cv.hp.com (Paul Andresen) writes: : >|> >In article <1993Apr21.032427.22464@leland.Stanford.EDU>, punjabi@leland.Stanford.EDU (sanjeev punjabi) writes: : >|> >(2)   Having Bonds batting behind Williams means that Matt will get : >|> >      more good pitches to hit.  This is important since he struggles : >|> >      so much with breaking balls.  Opposing pitchers don't want to : >|> >      walk Williams to get to Bonds. : > : >I have to wonder if this "good hitter behind you" argument is really valid. : >Has anyone done a study on this.  : : 	You want a study? Look at Matt Williams the year after : 	Mitchell was gone. Look no further. Not a scientific : 	study, but it'll show the truth for Matt. Besides, Bonds : 	_wants_ to bat 5th  I had thought that Williams batted after Mitchell.  Wouldn't that show that Williams does better at 5th rather than 4th?  The point is moot, though, becase Clark pretty much demands to be 3rd and, like you point out, Bonds does like to bat 5th.  The only person left to bat 4th is Williams.
In article <1qn6tqINNmnf@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes: > >the best home run i have *ever* seen came off, believe it or not, >Roger Clemens (sorry, Val) a couple of years ago. he threw a ball to >Incaviglia which was literally at Inky's neck, and he absolutely  >hammered the crap out of it. after the swing, Clemens nonchalantly >motioned for a new ball--he didn't even turn around to look, or >even get upset. the ball hit the lights in the left-field standard, >some 70 or so feet about the Green Monster (over 100 feet above the >ground total!) > >truly an amazing shot.  I agree.  Home runs off Clemens are always memorable.  Kinda like eclipses and hurricanes.  They don't happen very often.
In article <1993Apr16.133818.1452@blurt.oswego.edu> ma_ind25@blurt.oswego.edu writes: >I believe that Rusty Staub was also a jewish ball-player  Rust Staub is NOT Jewish. In fact, I think his father was a minister.
In article <0096B0F0.C5DE05A0@Msu.oscs.montana.edu>, alird@Msu.oscs.montana.edu writes... >In article <1993Apr15.003015.1@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu>, cvadrnlh@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu writes: >>Today (4/14) Cubs activated P Mike Harkey from DL, whom did they move to make >>room for Harkey? >>Also, are Delino Deshields & John Wetteland of the Expos on the DL? >>Thanks for anyone who can give me more info! >>/=== >>Ken  >>Cal Poly, Pomona >> >  >Wetteland is on the DL effective March 26 or something like that. >  >rick  Wetteland comes off the DL on April 23rd, and will be evaluated on the 24th. He is throwing well, and without pain on the side.  DeShields is not on the DL.  He suffered from the chicken pox and lost (this is the official total) 12 pounds.  He will be back, hopefully, next week.  Walker will be back this tonight or tomorrow...
>>consistent hitter -- definitely the best in the National League.  IMHO, to  >>have Williams, a streaky hitter (and not really a clutch hitter) batting >>4th ahead of Bonds is simply an injustice to the Giants and fans of the >>Giants. > >(2)   Having Bonds batting behind Williams means that Matt will get >      more good pitches to hit.  This is important since he struggles >      so much with breaking balls.  Opposing pitchers don't want to >      walk Williams to get to Bonds. >  You're definitely correct in that Williams absolutely has to be sandwiched in between Clark and Bonds.  He must, and I mean MUST, get fastballs to hit...otherwise he becomes little more than Sixto Lezcano in disguise. What I would suggest is perhaps batting Bonds, Williams, and Clark 3-4-5, the reason being that I feel Bonds' potential basestealing abilities are wasted when he's stuck behind two slow runners. I think the chance of getting 20-30 extra stolen bases with Bonds in the 3 spot would more than offset any drop in in run production by having  Clark in the 5 spot.
In article <1993Apr17.212119.13901@coe.montana.edu> warped@cs.montana.edu (Doug Dolven) writes: > >Has anyone heard anything about Mel Hall this season?  I'd heard he wasn't >with the Yankees any more.  What happened to him? > >				Doug Dolven >--  >Doug Dolven >warped@cs.montana.edu >gdd7548@trex.oscs.montana.edu  Mel Hall signed with a Japanese team.
In article <kingoz.735066879@camelot>, kingoz@camelot.bradley.edu (Orin Roth) writes: >    Well, officially it's the Braves. At least up until they started winning >    it was. Are they still, officially?  >    If so, why? and how did they receive this label?  There is NO TEAM, repeat, NO TEAM, that is America's team.  This is a diverse country with 26 MLB teams (+2 up north) and there is no one team that is America's.  Who would the other teams belong to?  And how does it happen?  Well, teams receive this monicker through success (Cowboys), national exposure (Cubs), or both (Braves).  It spreas aby successful advertising campaigns.  Harry Caray, Ted Turner, amd other dupe people into thinking that their representative teams are "hip" so that people will watch them on TV and buy their products.  Arrogant local fans adapt the monicker and think that "their" team is the one that America idolize
On Mon, 12 Apr 93 00:53:14 GMT in <<1993Apr12.005314.5700@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>> Greg Spira (gspira@nyx.cs.du.edu) wrote:  :>Does anybody in the Pittsburgh area know why Mike LaValliere was released? :>Last year I kept saying that Slaught should get the bulk of the playing time, :>that he was clearly the better player at this point, but Leyland insisted on :>keeping a pretty strict platoon.  And now he is released?  That doesn't :>make any sense to me.  Greg,      The story goes like this:         Spanky is too slow!  If he were quicker, he would still be here. But with Slaught and Tom Prince, they didn't want to lose Prince in order to bring up that 11th pitcher.  Slaught is about as good as Spanky and Prince is coming along nicely!        Don't feel too bad for him.  He's still gonna get theat $4,000,000 over the next two years -- he'll be able to do most of what he wants to do.
>>	The situation with the Giants' bleachers is a case in point for the >>need for a commissioner.  This is true, but the main thing the commish i.e. Selig needs to do is to suspend Bobby Cox.  You *cannot* allow a team to come out at the ump as the Braves did.  I usually rip umps, but in this case, the players were dead wrong.  Cox should go for 5 games.  If I had ever umped a game where that happened, I'd have ejected every player that came out.  Only Cox and Gant would have been spared, and then Cox would have gone in the ensuing argument.
In article <116085@bu.edu> icop@csa.bu.edu (Antonio Pera) writes: +> +>	Recently, I heard the Red Sox on WROL a Spanish-speaking radio station. +>I thought it was so unreal. The Red Sox in Spanish? Anyway, I want to find +>out how widespread this is? Being a NY native, I know the scMets are on in +>Spanish but not the Yankmes. I wuold think that LA,SD,Texas and Fla are on +>in Spanish. Are there any Spanish-speaking networks or is this a local  The braves day games are broadcast is Spanish on a station called "La Favorita".  (the station has a daytime liscence only).
Hi, baseball fans! So what do you say? Don't you think he deserves it? I   mean, heck, if Dave Winfield (ho-hum) is seriously being considered for it, as  is Lee Smith (ha), then why don't we give Dave Kingman a chance? Or Darrell  Evans! Yeah, yeah! After the Hall of Fame takes in them, it can take in Eddie  Murray and Jeff Reardon.       Well, in any case, I am sick and tired (mostly sick) of everybody giving  Hall of Fame consideration to players that are by today's standards, marginal.  Honestly, Ozzie Smith and Robin Yount don't belong there. They're both  shortstops that just hung around for a long time. Big deal.       Let's be a little more selective, huh? Stop handing out these honors so  liberally. Save them for the guys who really deserve it. Face it, if something  isn't done, there will be little prestige in the Hall of Fame anymore. When  certain individuals believe that Steve Garvey or Jack Morris are potential  candidates, the absurdity is apparent. Gee, can these guys even compare to  the more likely future Hall of Famers like Kirby Puckett or Nolan Ryan?