waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <C5w7zo.5xL@eskimo.com>, Steven Thornton writes:  > In article <1993Apr21.130659.1@tesla.njit.edu> drm6640@tesla.njit.edu > writes:  > Just watch me. Mattingly is a below average fielder.   > Before you start up, yes, I have proof. There are really only two > adequate ways to measure fielding prowess. the first, which has the > advantage of being applicable to older players, since it uses raw data > available for almost all of MLB history, is the Total Chances per Game > method favored by the Total Baseball people among others. It basically > says that you measure a fielder by how many balls he gets to.   But it is subject to all kinds of bias, and is almost completely useless for first basemen.  From the raw stats, there is no way to tell which of a first baseman's putouts were made on throws from other fielders, and which were made on his own plays; likewise, you can't tell whether a double play was 6-4-3 or 3-6-3.  Fielding Runs thus gives a first baseman no credit for putouts or double plays, only for assists and errors.    It thus favors first basemen who play deep, reaching a lot of balls but forcing the pitcher to cover first more frequently.  It also hurts first baseman who play behind left-handed pitching staffs and thus face few left-handed batters.  > A better method, but newer and based ondata that has only been collected > over the last few years, measures the percentage of balls hit into the > part of the field the guy is responsible for.   This is better; of course, it still isn't all of a first baseman's defense.  > Some references: Mattingly's 1992 defensive rating, STATS method, from > Mike Gimbel's Baseball Player and Team Ratings: -1.  Defensive Average, which uses larger (and probably better) zones, has Mattingly tied for second in the league.  > On the other hand, he has contributed 233 runs by his batting > actions, a pretty healthy number.   While 233 batting runs is good, it is mostly in the past; the runs he produced in 1986 don't say much about his value in 1993.
In article <C5JBsE.KKK@news.udel.edu> philly@ravel.udel.edu (Robert C Hite) writes: > >Are you for real?  How many Gold Gloves does Ozzie Smith have?  If a >guy hung around and hit 30 homers a year for 15 years, wouldn't he >be a given for the Hall?  Is defense not just as important?  Frankly, no.  Offense and defense are equally important.  But the pitcher is 80% of the defense.  The primary role of every other player is on offense.  Even shortstops are a bigger part of the offensive game than of the defensive game.  (They might not do much with their part of the offense, but that's another issue.)  That being said, I think both Smith and Yount deserve the HOF.  They hit pretty well in addition to their defense.
Doug Roberts - Ken Hill for NL MVP!! 	       Let's go 'Spos
In article <20APR93.15151474@vax.clarku.edu>, hhenderson@vax.clarku.edu       writes...  >nflynn@wvnvms.wvnet.edu writes:  >>However, what is with this policy of trying to speed up the games.  >I agree with Nick.  What's the big deal about long games?  If you want >to watch baseball, there's that much more baseball to watch.  And yes, >baseball includes the space between plays as well as the plays themselves.  I hesitate to make assumptions about other people when they write, but neither of you two *sound* as though you have kids, and you may not have spouses either.  Consider a night game starting at 7:05 PM EST.  (It was 7:35 last year, but Cleveland showed what I thought was good sense in pushing it back.) I go, and I'm into it until 11 PM minimum.  Extra innings could put me well past midnight.  Even without extra innings, if the score is beyond 2-1 I can't see my family that night at all.  If the next day is a workday, I may have to bag that as well.  Further, the later the game goes, the colder it gets on the shore of Lake Erie.  All that stuff enters into my consideration of even going to a game.  If you say you don't care about whether the game is sped up, IMPO you are  saying you don't care where the time goes, and that the game is for people who don't have families and don't have to get up for work the next day.  RG
Last year Brein Taylor was in A ball, probably at Tampa in the Florida State League.  I believe he began this year in AA which is Albany.  Hopefully George won't rush him and he'll be allowed to progress at his own rate to AAA and then to the Bronx.  This guy is the real thing.
stevet@eskimo.com (Steven Thornton) writes:  |The official MLB formula for OBP is (hits plus walks plus hit-by-pitch) |divided by (at-bats plus walks plus hit-by-pitch plus sacrifice flies). |Sac bunts and errors have no effect. Source: Total Baseball (and they                ^^^^^^  	Sure they might. If an error is recorded on, for example, a ground ball, ie the batter would otherwise be out, it is officially a hitless at bat. If it's some other type of error (Greenwell lets a single go by), it doesn't effect the OBP. But, most errors are counted.
In article <C5tHz3.Lr4@world.std.com> tac@world.std.com (Tackey Chan) writes: > >	Ugliest swing..I am not sure. I think the ugliset stance is >Jolio Franco of the Ranger. I wonder how that bat comes around in time >to hit the ball. It looks bad but hey.it get the job done.  > >				------TAC   Ugliest stance of all time has to go to Oscar Gamble. The man would practically kneel in front of home plate in order to have a small strike zone! (He's just lucky that strike zone size isn't determined by how big your afro is:)
In article <1993Apr16.163712.2466@VFL.Paramax.COM> edd@gvlf4-a.gvl.unisys.com (Ed Dougherty) writes: > >As a Philly fan as as a Penna. baseball fan, I'm anxious to see the >Penna. series.  Anyone know when it starts and where the first games >will be played? > >This is (I think) always good baseball (to me); and the Pirates are >also off to a good start. > >Ed Doc  When is it did you say?  Well let me shell out here and run this handy dandy program....  $ mlb -m pit phi  And the answer is:             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)
In my last message, I wrote: **************************************************** 12) Management: BIG BIG ZERO. Sauer has yet to make a forceful agreement in favor of revenue sharing. ******************************************************   I meant argument instead of agreement. Also, I think I should add a coouple of Ted's positive achievements - Smiley trade was good for the pirates. but I think Ted could have gotten someone better than Neagle. Cummings seems to be pretty good. - The Cole trade was excellent. BUt Simmons has botched it up now. -This year's draft seems to have gone well for the PIrates. BUt then they lost 2 high picks in the Bonds fiasco.
In article <he82p38@zola.esd.sgi.com> archer@elysium.esd.sgi.com (Archer (Bad Cop) Surly) writes: >In <m0nll6S-0000ahC@udcps3.cps.udayton.edu> mbohler@udcps3.cps.udayton.edu (Michael Bohler) writes: > >*To really speed up the game umps need to START CALLING STRIKES the way >*they used to.  I'm talking about making the strike zone start at the >*knees and go up to the top of the letters.  Forget this "the strike zone >*is in the general area of the groin".  A lot less 3-and-2 counts and a >*quicker game.  > >They tried that in the '60's and people stopped coming to the ballparks  >in droves, as offense suffered immensely.  They lowered the mound first (before the 69 season).  The shrinkage of the strike zone didn't start until the mid-70s.
The roar at Michigan and Trumbull should be loader than ever this year.  With Mike Illitch at the head and Ernie Harwell back at the booth, the tiger bats will bang this summer.  Already they have scored 20 runs in two games and with Fielder, Tettleton, and Deer I think they can win the division.  No pitching! Bull!  Gully, Moore, Wells, and Krueger make up a decent staff that will keep the team into many games.  Then there is Henneman to close it out.  Watch out Boston, Toronto, and Baltimore - the Motor City Kittys are back.
In article <1qi97dINNemh@phakt.usc.edu> wagner@phakt.usc.edu (Loren Wagner) writes: >In article <1993Apr14.123722.24506@bmw.mayo.edu> bergerson@mayo.edu writes: >> >>Maybe you would rather have Ron Davis back ????   :^) >> > >The truly amazing thing was how many years this bum was the closer for the >Twins.  You'd have thought they could find *somebody* better. > >Don Daybell >wagner@usc.edu   Going into the ninth with a 3 run lead, ...2 runs score...runners on  first and second...RD throws, "there's a drive waaaaaayyyyyyy back,  Puckett to the wall, leaps, He CAUGHT THE BALL!!!!  WHAT A CATCH BY KIRBY!! TWINS WIN!"  and RD gets the save.  His line 1 IP, 2 walks, 2 hits, and one robbed home run...
In article <ericsC5Hzr5.EuI@netcom.com> erics@netcom.com (Eric Smith) writes: >Yeah, the Phillies played over their heads almost the whole year, >but it all caught up to them in one 10-game streak. I *am* as old as >1964 (man!) and I was a big Phillies fan at the time (age 13). 	. 	. 	. >the Dodgers or somebody else finish two games back? That has to be >one of the closest last minute scrambles ever.  Since I was born in the late Pleistocene, I too remember 1964.  That year, the Dodgers were several games out of first and I think finished sixth in the league.  This was kind of odd because they won the World Series both the previous year and the following year.     --  Warren Usui
In article <C5y9wt.Gpw@news.udel.edu> philly@ravel.udel.edu (Robert C Hite) writes:
Actually, there can be any number of players on a side. You can have a 25-man roster, a 40-man roster, etc....  Ryan Robbins Penobscot Hall University of Maine
scottm@helena.stat.uga.edu (scott mclure) writes:  >In article <1993Apr23.061709.26822@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> gspira@nyx.cs.du.edu (Greg Spira) writes: >>paladin@leland.Stanford.EDU (Jason Gische) writes: >> >>>In article <1993Apr21.213902.4888@cs.cornell.edu> tedward@cs.cornell.edu (Edward [Ted] Fischer) writes: >>>>I think Sac flies are the only way OBP can be below BA. >>>> >> >>>Does this seem dumb to anyone else? >>>(The fact not the comment.) >> >>>Why should a batter's OBP be hurt by a sac fly?  Especially if sac >>>bunts don't have the same effect, since they do the same thing, >>>but sac flies usually score a run while bunts just advance a base. >> >>>But both of these situations involve the batter giving up an AB for >>>the benefit of the team (sacrifice)?  So why should it hurt their >>>stats? >> >>The sac bunt is a purposeful act, ordered by the manager.   >>The batter does not go up "trying" to get a sac fly, and the >>evidence available indicates that there is no such ability - >>players can't will themselves to hit sac flies, they fly out >>to the same place just as often when there's nobody on third. >> >>Greg  >> >>  >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?  You haven't been facing major league pitching.          Maybe more... you have to be good at the plate, and most >of those guys are just as likely to opt for getting the base hit and >helping their average as getting the sacrifice.  The best example I know >of is Jerry Willard in the 91 Series against Minnesota.  All he had to >do was put one in the OF and the game was over.  He swung waaaaaay past >parallel and accomplished (barely) getting the run in safely.  STATS did a little study in the 1993 Scoreboard book entitled "Can you hit sacrifice flies on purpose?"  A summary of the findings:  Over the 5 year period, sac-fly type fly balls were produced 17.6 percent of the time in situations where a sac fly was useful, and  17.7 percent of the time when a sac fly wasn't useful.  They looked at the leaders in sac flies, and found that the leaders in sac flies - in other words, the guys you would expect to be good at it it - hit sac fly type fly balls only 3% more often when they needed to - a difference way too small to be the result of a skill. Essentially, the players who hit a lot of sac flies seem to do so because they hit hit sac fly type flies often, with and without a runner on third.  STATS concludes "So it appears conclusive that hitters cannot hit sacrifice flies on purpose - even if they practice in the bATTING cage."
It depends. If, in the judgment of the umpire the batter made no attempt to avoid getting hit, the batter is awarded first for a base on balls. If the umpire rules he did try to get out of the way, he's awarded first because of a hit batsman.  Ryan Robbins Penobscot Hall University of Maine
I read this morning that Sid Fernandez left last nights' game with stiffness in his shoulder. Does anyone have any information as to the extent of the injury (if indeed there is one), or weather the cold air in Colorado just got his joints a little stiff?  Thanks for the help... |         Ray Miller           |            DISCLAIMER               | |  cub@chopin.jpl.nasa.gov     |  All opinions are strictly my own   |
In article <mjones.735273896@fenway> mjones@donald.aix.kingston.ibm.com writes: >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.  a) Dominican b) not all that light-hitting.  .304 lifetime, .315 or so in 1966-73 when he did most of his playing.   c) Professional pinch-hitter after that.  Yes, that also gives you Jerry Hairston.  >Billy Hatcher  Beginning 10th year now.  >Herm Winningham.  Good one.  >Lonnie Smith (not light hitting, but a horror in the field)  Not the same thing.  LOTS of people are bad OFs.  >Gary Redus  Not all that light either.  .750 OPS.  >Dion James  Not 10 year.  >Daryl Boston  10-year this year.  >Vince Coleman (yeah, he's finally started to have a decent OBP)  Not 10-year.    >Cecil Espy  Not 10-year.  >Willie Wilson  Yup.  >Gary Pettis  OK.  >Milt Thompson  10-year this year.  >Gary Varsho  *Six*-year this year.  >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.  Brock, Coleman, and Wilson were hot-dog basestealers (also Lonnie Smith); that seems to be a special class.  CFs like Pettis and Wilson also get  more of a break, especially if they actually *do* field well.  And Brock wasn't all that bad a hitter either, not until the end there when he  spoiled his ifetime .300 BA.  And again, I suspect thatthe problem is lessening over time.  But if you look at the history of the last three decades, there seems to  be a clear race-based pattern by which utility players and platoon players and lesser talents stayed in the ML far longer if they were white.  >Cesar Cedeno.   Light hitting?  199 HR, .793 lifetime OPS mainly with *HOUSTON*? Also Latin, btw.  >>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.  Come back in 1999 and we'll party^H^H^H^H^H talk.
Dale Stephenson (steph@cs.uiuc.edu) wrote: : In <C5JJrJ.EM3@cs.uiuc.edu> steph@cs.uiuc.edu (Dale Stephenson) writes:  : >Compiled from the last five Defensive Average reports, here are the career : >DAs for the individual players in the reports.  Stats are courtesy of : >Sherri Nichols.  Players are listed in descending order.  : And some comments, with some players deleted.  : >Third Basemen : >------------- : >Leius, Scott         ----  ----  ----  .653  .680   0.672 : Looks good.  Too bad he's moving to short.  : >Pagliarulo, Mike     .631  ----  .575  .744  ----   0.649 : This is an interesting line.  His 1988 figure was slightly below average. : His 1990 was pathetic, and his 1991 was the next best year by anybody.  Part of : that may be his mobility.  1988 was with the Yankees.  1990 was with the : Padres, who appear to have a rotten infield.  1991 was with the Twins, and : judging by Leius and Gaetti, the Metrodome may be a good place to play : third.  Gaetti, Gary         .616  .638  .655  .632  ----   0.637  Apologies if I don't know what I'm talking about :-), but as a Twins fan, I like to think they have good players in any park.  Not sure if I remember completely or not, but I think Gaetti played with the Twins in '87 for the  world series, and again in '88 (note that's his lowest of the 4).  I believe  the next 3 (or at least the last two) were played with the Angels.   Lots of factors make a player excell...  I hate it when so many use the dome. It may not be ideal, but nice to comfortably enjoy baseball and football  even when it's snowing and raining.  -Craig
In article <93109.190117RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu> <RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu> writes: >In article <mssC5qrrz.91H@netcom.com>, mss@netcom.com (Mark Singer) says: >> > >1) why would owners decrease ticket prices when they obviously get >   lots of people to pay the price they're asking?   I don't think that it is "obvious" that "lots" of people are willing to pay the price.  I'm sure someone out there in net-land has some facts about trends in attendance regarding percentage of capacity sold.  But even if the trends are relatively flat, you have to consider what is happening on a team-by-team basis.  When the TV money dries up, franchises will be seeking to supplant the lost revenues from alternative sources.  One of the best sources may be ticket sales.  Example 1:	The Dodgers  	The Dodgers can count on a strong base of season ticket sales 	and *probably* believe that they have the ability to raise 	prices without hindering revenues.  I certainly think that is 	true.  Example 2:	The Padres  	They will be lucky to average 10,000 fans a game this year. 	If they raise prices, less.  If they want to increase their 	overall revenue base, the best thing they can do is put a 	winning team on the field.  But given that won't happen (it 	won't), they can probably make more money by lowering ticket 	prices and running frequent promotions.  Will they do that? 	I have no idea.  But they won't increase prices, because it 	won't work *for them*.   >2) even assuming that you have some strange power to make the owners >   decrease ticket prices, that does not decrease the tv contract.   The only strange powers at work here are the forces of the market place. Each team's market is somewhat different, and each owner is going to be faced with a unique set of circumstances about how to deal with those market forces.  As a buiness manager, I would never *want* to lower my prices, but sometimes that strategy is necessary, and sometimes it works. You have to consider everything if you want continued success.     --	The Beastmaster
>DATE:   Fri, 23 Apr 1993 00:03:11 GMT >FROM:   Tackey Chan <tac@world.std.com> > >wall@cc.swarthmore.edu (Matthew Wall) writes: > >>So, anybody know what's up with John Franco? Are the Mets just starting him >>off gingerly because of the small amount of spring training work, or what? > >	The Mets are REALLY starting him off slow. Mike Maddax and >Young can do the job of closing. Torborg has said that he Franco is >his closer but will give him rest and not rush him since there is no >need. He does not want Franco to get hurt on his return. I have this >guy so I know what it is like to see him pitch 2 inns in that lat 2 >weeks.  > >			------TAC  Well, they just said that Franco will probably go on the DL tomorrow. (They mentioned a career minor leaguer as the "warm body" who would go  along...I forget.)  Also, when answering questions about the rotation, Coleman (SD  broadcaster) said that Hurst is gone in about a month-month and a half,  which is when he should finish re-hab.  Later  Dennis
In article <franjion.735413613@spot.Colorado.EDU> franjion@spot.Colorado.EDU (John Franjione) writes:  >I don't understand this at all.  Matt Williams has demonstrated >throughout his career that he will NOT wait for good pitches to hit. >He won't take walks.  He'd rather swing.  If I'm the opposing pitcher, >why would I groove a fastball to Williams and have him hit it well, >when I know that Williams will swing (and miss, or at least not hit >very well) at a low and away curve?  Matt's problem is really more ability than attitude.  It isn't that he's got it in his mind that he wants to swing away, but rather that he's (still) a total sucker for the curve ball.  It looked for a while in 1990 that he was getting better but it's still his weak point.  As to whether it does him any good to have Bonds behind him, the  net.stat.mavens will probably tell you there's no reason that it should, but if he thinks it will, it might be a self-fulfilling prophecy.  As to whether the Giants' lineup is optimal:  who knows?  Batting Bonds, the team's best hitter, fifth does seem to be odd, but the #1 and #2 hitters aren't exactly Messrs. OBA, so they aren't giving much up there.  And although Clark isn't the overall offensive force that Bonds is, he seems better suited to the #3 spot.  Assuming, of course, that he starts hitting one of these days...
In article <93602@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt0523e@prism.gatech.EDU (Michael Andre Mule) writes: >HEY!!! All you Yankee fans who've been knocking my prediction of Baltimore. >You flooded my mailbox with cries of "Militello's good, Militello's good." > >Where is he??!! I noticed he got skipped over after that oh so strong first >outing.  About as good as Mussina's. better than Sutcliffe's and McDonald's  >  He's not by any chance in Columbus  now, is he?  He's in the bullpen. Steinbrenner is in charge after all.  > Please don't tell >me you're relying on this guy to be the *fourth*, not the fifth, but the  >*fourth* starter on this brittle pitching staff.    He's got the talent to be the 4th starter now, and evetually the ace. He was a higher ranked (and generally better) prospect than Arthur Rhodes who happens to be, well hey, the Oriole's 4th starter.  > >As for the O's, it's still early.  As for Militello, it's still early.
jrogoff@scott.skidmore.edu (jay rogoff) writes:  >It was my impression watching the Mets & Rockies that umpires were >calling strikes above the belt, too, but not as far up as the letters. >It would be nice if this were the case.  The umps saw the weekend boxscores, too.  They knew the pitchers needed some help or they would be watching the sunrise. :)