waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <1993Apr13.184311.16351@news.yale.edu>, (Sean Garrison) says: > >In article <93102.164224RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu>, RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu >wrote: > >> pitchers who are doing well are >> more likely to be taken out of the game in the nl than they are in the al, >> so it seems to me that the al, not the nl, promotes pitchers' duels. >> >> bob vesterman. > > >On what basis do you make this statement? > >                                Q Sean  are you serious? pitchers are pinch-hit for in the nl.  they are not in the nl.  if a pitcher is cranking in the al, he will stay in the game.  if he is cranking in the nl, he may not - ESPECIALLY if it's a pitchers' duel, and his team needs an extra run.
Amazingly, pitchers, no matter how good their mechanics, are not machines.  Cy Young winners don't pitch in a vaccuum, unaware of how their offenses are doing.  	The Braves' pitching staff is already showing signs of cracking under the strain of knowing they're not going to get many (if any) runs.  Unfortunately, the Braves' pitchers were so bad for so long that the organization put so much stress (and I mean *stress*) on pitching that they completely ignored hitting.  	The Braves right now are looking woefully similar to the Braves of the mid-seventies.  Heaven help us.
This just in...  Nolan Ryan hurt his right knee in the 4th inning of the Rangers-Orioles game last night.  He'll be having arthoscopic surgery that will, at best, keep him on the DL for two to five weeks.  Just when I had almost convinced myself that the Rangers' rotation would stay healthy this year...
In article <15APR93.14691229.0062@lafibm.lafayette.edu> VB30@lafibm.lafayette.edu (VB30) writes: >Just wondering.  A friend and I were talking the other day, and >we were (for some reason) trying to come up with names of Jewish >baseball players, past and present.  We weren't able to come up >with much, except for Sandy Koufax, (somebody) Stankowitz, and >maybe John Lowenstein.  Can anyone come up with any more.  I know >it sounds pretty lame to be racking our brains over this, but >humor us.  Thanks for your help. > >Thanks. >Bobby    Hank Greenberg would have to be the most famous, because his Jewish faith actually affected his play. (missing late season or was it world series games because of Yom Kippur)
In article <1r3ejr$7tb@meaddata.meaddata.com>, daves@meaddata.com (Dave Spencer) writes: |> In article <1r20avINNb6q@cronkite.Central.Sun.COM>, bobn@hawkwind.central.Sun.COM (Bob Netherton) writes: |> |> In article <1993Apr20.013653.1@eagle.wesleyan.edu>, dhart@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes: |> |> |>  |> |> |>  |> |> |> Hey...I've noticed that Luis Alicea is starting at 2nd for the Cardinals |> |> |> instead of Geronimo Pena.  Is Pena hurt, or was he just benched for poor |> |> |> performance?  Anyone know? |> |>  |> |> After a quick start, Pena has been stuck in a rut.  Torre gave Alicea |> |> the start to try to get Pena out of whatever funk he is in.  It has |> |> worked in the past. |> |>  |>  |>    And it has worked again. Pena went 3 for 3 last night against Colorado. |>   Without opening this up for a sabermetric flame war, I would like to question the notion that "sitting a rested player down" has any real effect on his long-term performance.  Sure, if a man is tired and needs real rest, then taking a break might be a constructive act.  Perhaps if a man is mentally "strained", then sitting him down might help to the extent that that helps him relax.  But I would like to suggest that in the long run, players do slump, and benching is probably irrelevant.
>>>$ mlb -m pit phi >>>           Monday,  5/10 Pittsburg    at Philadelphia (5:35 pm)  >>>          Tuesday,  5/11 Pittsburg    at Philadelphia (5:35 pm)  >>>        Wednesday,  5/12 Pittsburg    at Philadelphia (5:35 pm)  >>>           Friday,  6/25 Philadelphia at Pittsburg    (5:35 pm)  >>>         Saturday,  6/26 Philadelphia at Pittsburg    (5:05 pm)  >>>           Sunday,  6/27 Philadelphia at Pittsburg    (11:35 am)  >>>           Friday,  7/30 Pittsburg    at Philadelphia (5:35 pm)  >>>         Saturday,  7/31 Pittsburg    at Philadelphia (5:05 pm)  >>>           Sunday,  8/ 1 Pittsburg    at Philadelphia (11:35 am)  >>>           Monday,  9/27 Philadelphia at Pittsburg    (5:35 pm)  >>>          Tuesday,  9/28 Philadelphia at Pittsburg    (5:35 pm)  >>>        Wednesday,  9/29 Philadelphia at Pittsburg    (5:35 pm)  >>>         Thursday,  9/30 Philadelphia at Pittsburg    (5:35 pm)  >>  >>  >> 	Are these times correct?? >>  >> 		They seem as if they are 2 hrs ahead of the usual tiems >> for these two teams. >>  >  > The origin of that first message was Boise, which is on Central time. >   >                                                                    P. Tierney
The O's just lost to the Rangers a few minutes ago I was not too happy about the pitching of Rick Sutcliffe (6 runs in 6 innings, 5 in the 3?) This puts me in remembering the 1990 O's season. After '89 we didn't do much over winter and we wound up in 5th. Now I know that Mussina, McDonald, and Rhodes are better pitching prospects than Ballard and Milacki but are any other Oriole fans scared out there?  Admiral Steve C. Liu
<KIME.93Apr20133127@mongoose.torolab.ibm.com> <mjones.735335684@fenway> Organization: Eskimo North (206) 367-3837 {eskimo.com}   Yeah, Morris just knows how to win. That's why he lost 18 for Detroit in 1990. Funny how he wins a lot of games when he pitches on good teams but loses a lot when he pitches on bad ones. And if "rings" was the only criteria for success, then teams would always tend to repeat, and eventually you'd have the same team win the WS every bleepin' year. Sort of like the yanks in the 50s.  Morris is a decent pitcher on the downside of a good, not great, career. Toronto will finish 3rd or 4th this year, with Morris and all those rings, because their pitching staff was destroyed over the off-season.
In article <sfoiXme00WB2QbulsK@andrew.cmu.edu>, Robert Ward <rw23+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes: > >A friend in England is looking for a Red Sox mailing list. If you know >of such a list, could you please send me mail with some info? Thank you.  >  I would be veru interested also, if there is one. Could someone please send me some info?
In article <1993Apr19.194025.8967@adobe.com> snichols@adobe.com (Sherri Nichols) writes: > >A reasonable umpire would do as he's been instructed to do this season: get >the batters back in the box sooner to try to cut down on the ridiculous >length of games.  I for one am glad to see this happen, and hope more >umpires will do as Hirschbeck did in instructing the pitcher to pitch if >the batter won't get back in the box.   >  	A "reasonable" umpire would have recognized that Ron Gant was  disturbed with the call.  A "reasonable" umpire would have realized that there was a 1-run game in progress, with two outs in the ninth.  What Ron Gant did was try to regain his composure.  What a "normal" baseball player would have done would have been to get into a heated argument with the umpire, and since you can't argue balls and strikes, he would have been ejected from the game.  Ron Gant, by trying to avoid such a conflict, was penalized for showing some restraint.  	Incidentally, a "reasonable" home plate umpire would not have been so resistant to seeking the appeal to the first base umpire, as Gant requested.  If the home plate umpire had appealed to first, the first base umpire could have wrung up the strike, and Gant would not have been so upset.  If the call had been a ball, and the catcher had requested the appeal, it is likely the home plate umpire would have asked for the help.  	Finally, the entire game was pretty much a mockery of the so-called efforts to "speed up the game."  The game was played very quickly, it was just at 2 hours when the stuff happened in the ninth, and the only delays in the entire game had been *the result* of actions by the umpires (other than Deion having to clean garbage off the field).
In article <1993Apr20.165918.16574@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, msilverm@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mike Silverman) writes: |> Does anybody know what is going on with Lankford? I know he was |> out for a few games with a slight injury, but since he has |> beenback (and before the injury for that matter) he has been |> really struggling at the plate and on the basepaths.  His performance at the plate may well be from the shoulder injury received when he ran into the wall making a catch in the Cincy series. It may also be him pressing a little.  As for the baserunning, it does not appear to be just Lankford. Dent made the bad call sending Lankford in the Sunday night game against Cincy - but everyone had a bad time against the Dodger's catcher.  |>  |> Whereis the Ray Lankford we saw last year???  Good question.  At least it doesn't appear that we are seeing the same Zeile :-)
The term "stopper" is generally used to refer to a pitcher, one who can be counted on to pitch a strong game to keep his team from going on a losing streak.  	The Braves have plenty of pitchers to fit this description, although right now I'd expect Smoltz or Glavine to take the mantle.  	What the Braves lack, however, is an offensive stopper, somebody they can look to to bring them out of their hitting slump. There's just no one there.  The Braves got rid of their best pure hitter, Lonnie Smith, and only Terry Pendleton on the current roster has ever shown more than a cursory ability to hit.	  	Oh, and another thing that worries me.  Ron Gant seems to have slowed down a step.  That's scary.  A slow Ron Gant doesn't have much going for him.
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
(Steve Tomassi) writes:  >     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?   > >Q Steve  	What's the difference between Nolan Ryan and Yount?  Both have hung around for years, and continue to post great stats.  Why shouldn't Dave Kingman get into the Hall?  Or Murray, Evens, Reardon, and others?  What the hell do you have to do?  Ask an opposing pitcher whether he thinks that Winfield should be in the hall...  God.  Pretty soon you'll be saying that Cal Ripken doesn't deserve to be in the Hall.  Then, I'll flame you. :-)
In article <rudyC5wCsG.G6A@netcom.com> rudy@netcom.com (Rudy Wade) writes: >I feel that talking about speeding up baseball games, is like trying >to keep signal to noise ratio high on rec.sports.baseball.  No matter >how much you talk about it, or how reasonable your arguments, there >will always be people who quote an entire article (with signatures!) >to make a one line comment, reply or woof.  Whether through their >stupidity, denseness or excitement and overeagerness to bless us with >their insight, no matter what is said, they will always keep doing it. > >Same with ballgames.  No matter how much it might benefit the game for >the umpires to enforce the rules and for the players/managers/coaches >to stop wasting our time -- it just ain't gonna happen. > >Rudy.
I am fortunate enough to have tickets for an Orioles-Red Sox game in   Baltimore on Saturday, July 31st.  I haven't been to the new park, and I was wondering if anyone out there can give me pointers or good tips   or anything helpful about the place so that I can enjoy every moment spent there. For instance, what time do the gates open?  Do we see the Orioles take BP? When will the Red Sox take BP?  Anything you can tell me would be  appreciated.  Thank you in advance.  Please respond to my e-mail address. I know it's still three-and-a-half months away, but I'm psyched!
In article <1r20avINNb6q@cronkite.Central.Sun.COM>, bobn@hawkwind.central.Sun.COM (Bob Netherton) writes: |> In article <1993Apr20.013653.1@eagle.wesleyan.edu>, dhart@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes: |> |>  |> |>  |> |> Hey...I've noticed that Luis Alicea is starting at 2nd for the Cardinals |> |> instead of Geronimo Pena.  Is Pena hurt, or was he just benched for poor |> |> performance?  Anyone know? |>  |> After a quick start, Pena has been stuck in a rut.  Torre gave Alicea |> the start to try to get Pena out of whatever funk he is in.  It has |> worked in the past. |>      And it has worked again. Pena went 3 for 3 last night against Colorado.
In article <derichC52GJE.FJA@netcom.com> derich@netcom.com (Scotty*Tissue) writes: > >  Whenever a person is put on the 15-day, 30-day or 60-day,  > the person is on the list longer than the specificed time > >  I've seen a person on the 15-day for maybe 4 months last year, I don't > remember what... > > I just need a little clarification on the disabled list specifications. > I believe we are down to two:  the 15-day and the 60-day.  (I don't remember  a 30-day, but rather a 21-day.  Anyways, it's gone now.)  The period length  is a minimum, not a maximum.  You can keep a guy on the 15-day for as long  as you want, IF he's still certified as injured.  The player must be  periodically re-evaluated to determine if he's still injured (thus you  cannot park a player on the DL who maybe is out of options and you do not  wish to expose to waivers).  If you get someone qualified for the 60-day  that reduces the frequency of re-evaluations.  There is no longer, I  believe, any limit to the number of players you can place on the DL.  When  there was, you often had to choose and juggle your injured players between  the lists. --King "Sparky" Banaian				|"No taxes:  No new taxes, kbanaian@pitzer.claremont.edu			|no old taxes, we are taxed Dept. of Economics, Pitzer College		|enough." -- Rep. Alan Keyes Latest 1993 GDP forecast:  2.4%		| (please run, Alan!)
In article <1993Apr23.212336.19002@alleg.edu> luriem@alleg.edu(Michael Lurie) The Liberalizer writes:  Do you have a better e-mail address, Mr. Lurie?  I'm afraid I can't get the short version to work.  In any case, on Winfield.  Yes, his career BA is a mere .285.  He didn't beat this until his sixth year in the majors, and has only topped it once since 1988.  His peak was in the early '80s, and included some rather impressive seasons.  But then he's also had other scattered great performances (like 1988 and 1992).  Definitely *not* a smooth career curve!
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>  	The defenition of the Underdog is a team that has no talent and comes out of nowhere to contend.  The '69 Mets and '89 Orioles are prime examples, not the Cubs.  I root for the Cubs, because I feel sorry for them, but  basically they are dogs.  The Pirates today are a great example of an underdog. If the Rockies and Marlins compete, they will be underdogs.  The North Stars trip to the Stanley Cup finals was a good example of an underdog's journey.  The Cubs have a good team this year, and play in a weak division, they are much less than America's Team.   >  >-- >I'm really a jester in disguise!
In article <1993Apr23.065059.16619@rigel.econ.uga.edu> scottm@helena.stat.uga.edu (scott mclure) writes: >Sorry, I gotta disagree here.  Last time I played ball, I went up on >several occasions intending to hit a fly ball deep enough to score the >runner from third or advance a runner to third.  It's relatively easy >actually... you swing under the path of the ball you normally would to >hit a good line drive.  With fastballs it's very easy, much more >difficult with good breaking balls.  A good hitter with excellent bat >control can voluntarily hit fly balls to the outfield at least, oh, 60% >of the time?  Maybe more..  There's a blurb in the STATS Scoreboard about this, and though I don't have the book with me here, my memory is that the best at hitting sac flies were far below this 60% number.
In article <1993Apr20.025331.17413@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca> maynard@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Roger Maynard) writes: > >We cannot isolate the total contribution that any player at any position >makes to his team's victory.  And since we cannot make that measure with >complete confidence of objectivity, and since there is no absolutely  >necessary reason to make that kind of subjective measurement I submit to  >you that it is pointless.  If a GM is trying to put together a winning >team he might consider ERA, he might consider attitude, he might consider >past performance in key situations.  But what he is looking for is not  >the player that he considers the "best".  The GM is looking for the player >he thinks can help his team win.  We cannot isolate completely, Roger, but we can make a pretty good estimate. I won't claim to split hairs and say that we can really measure who was better, Robby Alomar or Carlos Baerga, last year; the difference is too close to call. But Larkin and Lee? Clemens and Morris? The differences are too great there.  In your measure of the game, why should a team that has just won it all ever replace a single player? Since they are now clearly "best", how can they do better? Yet every team can always find someplace where they beleive they can improve the team; they can always find a player a little better than one they already have. (BTW, by my definitions, the "best" player is the one who does the most things to help his team win. I will allow that this could vary depending on who else is on the team, by having aptitudes one team needs more than others.)  Baseball is a team game, but it is made of individual talents. It is absurd to judge the success or failure of an individual by the success or failure of his teammates, whom he did not choose (at least in most cases.) Morris won last year because he played on a team with Joe Carter, Robby Alomar, Tom Henke, Juan Guzman, John Olerud, et al. Clemens lost because he was surrounded by such lesser performers as Herm Winninham, Luis Rivera, and Jeff Reardon. To define the quality of the team as a sum of its components (as I do, albeit imperfectly) is a lesser error than defining the quality of an individual as the mean quality of the team (as my reading of your arguments suggests you do)
Doug, those stats are great!  they help immensely.  I tried to E-Mail you with some comments on them but my mail server does not recognize your address.  Could you E-Mail me with some info on how to get E-Mail to you?  Thanks!
In article <1993Apr16.174843.28111@cabell.vcu.edu> csc2imd@cabell.vcu.edu (Ian M. Derby) writes: >On the serious side:  Maybe we should have a sub for Sports Radio/TV. > >As much as people complain about one station or another, the >information you hear is a lot more in depth than what you can get on >the AP wire or USA Today.  So, to benefit those who have favorite >teams outside of their vicinity, this would do wonders.  People can >get on and talk about what Cataldi said about the Eagles or what >Lupica said of the Bonilla incident etc.  This can be for any station >across the country.  Anyone agree?   I agree, although I would have no idea how to go about doing it. But you've got my vote.   --I'm outta here like Vladimir --Alan
Well, it really isn't this cut and dry, but as a Jay fan the thing I feared worst has happened. The Yanks sent down Williams G and are going to start Williams B in CF.   I also believe they kept Wickman and Millitello in their rotation, which is much nicer than that Kaminiecki and Mike Witt combo I thought they'd throw out their to the slaughterhouse because of their "experience". Granted, Witt "might" be good, but I think that they used rationale to keep the youngsters up and not given the job to Witt because he was a good pitcher and has experience.   The Yanks are showing that they are taking positive strides forwards; the Jays with the loss of Dave Stewart are looking at gigantic holes in their pitching staff.   The Orioles should also be there in the end.....
In article <1993Apr6.204514.2180@adobe.com>, snichols@adobe.com (Sherri Nichols) writes: > In article <12805@news.duke.edu> fierkelab@bchm.biochem.duke.edu (Eric Roush) writes: > > > > > >Am I the only person who thinks the Reds sleeveless uniforms are > >ugly?  Yet another reason why they won't win the NL West! ;) >   > If uniforms really were a deciding factor in pennant races, the '79 Pirates > would have never won anything; those have to be the ugliest uniforms I've > ever seen, particular the all-yellow set. >  > Sherri Nichols > snichols@adobe.com >   My vote goes for the ('75?) Indians with their all-red uniforms. Boog Powell once said he felt like a big red blood clot.
I have posted the logos of the NL East teams to alt.binaries.pictures.misc   Hopefully, I'll finish the series up next week with the NL West.   Darren