waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <1qplh7$e2g@agate.berkeley.edu> jtchern@ocf.berkeley.edu (Joseph Hernandez) writes: } In article <1qp1m9INNfjg@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes: } >In article <1993Apr17.050311.10098@news.yale.edu> (Sean Garrison) writes: } >} [Stuff about upated inning scores deleted.] } >at just that exact time to see the message. even results after the game } >is over are not necessary, thanks to Mr. Hernandez who posts daily } >standings and results here every day. }  } Am I supposed to take that as a compliment or a put down? Just wondering.  it was meant entirely, 100%, as a compliment.  } I do this as a service to the entire baseball world on USENET, especially } for those in the East Coast who can't get final scores for West Coast games } in their newspapers or late TV newscasts. This is helpful to fans in other } countries who either receive only weekly scores or updates by the week. Also, } many have requested for this kind of service previously but it was only } available through BBS's or some pay news services. By the way, mine is free } of charge and has no copyright restrictions.  i was not trying to criticize your service at all. in fact, i was trying to encourage others to use it. i don't personally use it, but i'm sure others do, and that was my point in posting--there is no need for individuals to duplicate, in an ad hoc fashion, what you have already organized.   } >if you want to send updates and scores, set up a private mailing list } >and use that. }  } Remember I only post final scores and the updated standings once a day to the } rec.sport.baseball newsgroup. Other than that, everything is done through } private e-mail. Currently, there are 986 people on my mailing list that } branches off into other mailing lists available for many others. And the list } grows by an average of 35 people a day.  having one person, such as yourself, who does it, is a great idea. having 100 do it is not. that's all.  keep up the good work, Joseph.
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.  Hank Greenberg, Sid Gordon, Ron Blomberg.
Does anyone know where Billy Taylor is?  Richmond or Syracuse?  He was taken by the Jays in the Rule V draft, but not kept on the roster.  Baseball Weekly said that he was demoted to Syracuse, but a Toronto paper indicated that the Braves took him back.  Is there an Atlanta fan, or anyone reading this, who knows?
I sent a version of this post out a while ago, but it was swallowed by the void.  My apologies if anyone ends up receiving it.  Sherri Nichols writes:  >In article <22APR93.04131972@vax.clarku.edu> hhenderson@vax.clarku.edu writes: >>snichols@adobe.com (Sherri Nichols) writes: >> >>>I just don't >>>happen to think that the 11-15 minutes added to the length of games over >>>the last 10 years has added anything interesting. >> >>How would you quantify that?  I suppose an easy way would be to look at >>attendance figures.  Anyone got the numbers? > >Attendance figures aren't going to quantify anything about my personal >opinion, which the above is clearly stated as.  Add "to me" to the end of >my sentence, if you're confused about what I meant.  Oh no, I wasn't confused -- I understood that it was your personal opinion.  But I thought we were discussing the need to shorten games.  The arguments which declare this need seem to hinge on the assertion that long games bore people and otherwise discourage them from going to the ballpark.  I'd like to see if the increased length of games has negatively affected attendance.  If it has, then there *is* a problem, and something should be done about it.  If it hasn't, then there *isn't* a problem, and there's no need to monkey with things as they are.
In article <1993Apr15.160316.9170@cs.cornell.edu> tedward@cs.cornell.edu (Edward [Ted] Fischer) writes: > >Oops!  I came across this file from last year.  Thought you might >enjoy some of these thoughts.  The predictions were made on the >date indicated.  They are largely out of order.  much crap deleted  >>3. Managers to be fired this year (1992) in chronological order: >>Fregosi, Showalter, Valentine, Riddoch > >Three of them went, right?  Showalter is still around (and likely to >stick, it seems).  DEAD WRONG!  Last time I checked, Jim Fregosi was still managing the Phillies, and doing quite a fine job thank you...best record in baseball at 8-1  MY PREDICTION FOR 1993: Jim Fregosi will win manager of the year in the NL
warped@cs.montana.edu  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
In article <1993Apr21.024643.5135@adobe.com> snichols@adobe.com (Sherri Nichols) writes:  >The reason I'm unhappy with the length of games today is summed up above. >For an extra 15 minutes/game (average) in the AL, and an extra 11 minutes >(average) in the NL, I'm seeing fewer runs score.  > >Now, what I think I *am* seeing is more pitches.  More strikeouts (over >1/game in the AL, over .6/game more in the NL), more walks (.2/game more in  Yep.  And the Ks don't have to denote a slow game, either.  Last night, Sid Fernandez was mowing the Giants hitters down (14 Ks in 8 innings), yet the first 7 1/2 innings of the game were quite brisk.  He also threw 119 pitches, leading me to believe it isn't just the number of pitches that determines the length of a game, but the  behavior *between* pitches.
In article <franjion.735432623@spot.Colorado.EDU> franjion@spot.Colorado.EDU (John Franjione) writes:  >>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.  >I don't understand.  If it is Williams' lack of ability (which you say >above, and I agree with) which causes him to swing at bad pitches, how >will thinking that Bonds hitting behind him will help him to stop >chasing bad pitches.  I didn't mean that it would necessarily help him improve at that specific deficiency.  I meant that if having Bonds bat behind him gives Williams (possibly unfounded) confidence, that might translate into more hitting productivity.  But you're right -- if Williams' biggest problem is more physical than mental, that's less likely to make a difference.
MIF101@psuvm.psu.edu writes: >  >    I heard about a month back that the Red Sox are getting a new dome stadium. > I have relatives that just moved up that way, and they said about the city > releasing the funds.  Can anybody verify this? > to a game >  >                                               Bosox fan in Pa  I have lived in the Boston area for 15 years now.  They have been talking about a new Boston Garden (hockey/basketball) since I've lived here.  One day the "last hurdle" has been overcome, and the next day there's a new hurdle.  Fans have been grumbling about Foxboro Stadium (or whatever it's called this year) for nearly as long, but there are only preliminary proposals for a new stadium.  Local politics prevents anything from being done in a timely fashion.  There will not be a new ballpark in my lifetime.
In article <1qkkodINN5f5@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu>, pablo@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Pablo A Iglesias) writes: > 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) >  I thought that was Sandy Koufax.
Here's an easy question for someone who knows nothing about baseball...     What city do the California Angels play out of?    --  Richard J. Rauser        "You have no idea what you're doing." rauser@sfu.ca            "Oh, don't worry about that. We're professional WNI                          outlaws - we do this for a living."
In article <4200419@hpcc01.corp.hp.com> boell@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Donald P Boell) writes: >I'd have to say the most impressive HRs I've ever see came from Dave Kingman >and his infamous moon-raker drives...  I remember one he hit circa 1976 at Wrigley Field that went across the street (in dead center field) and hit a house on the roof.  He whiffed a lot, but when he *did* connect, watch out!     --   #include <std_disclaimer.h>
In article <steph.735027990@pegasus.cs.uiuc.edu> steph@pegasus.cs.uiuc.edu (Dale Stephenson) writes: >>Smith, Ozzie           .742  .717  .697  .672  .664   0.701 >  The Wizard's 1988 is the second highest year ever.  Still very good, >but I don't like the way his numbers have declined every year.  In a few >years may be a defensive liability.  That's rich... Ozzie Smith a defensive liability...
Bunker & McNally were later.  Pappas, Estrada, Steve Barber, and . . . ?
cmeyer@bloch.Stanford.EDU (Craig Meyer) writes:  >Michael Chen (mike@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu) wrote:  >: In any case, I think Viola would have made a better signing.  Why? >: Viola is younger, and is left handed (how many left handed starters does >: Toronto have?  >Well, I agree that Viola is a better signing.  However, why does >everyone say that you want lefthanded starters?  I understand lefthanded >spot relievers, even though they usually face more righthanded batters >than lefthanded batters.  I just don't understand why people insist >on lefthanded starters, unless there is a park effect (e.g., Yankee Stadium).  The answer is - they're stupid.  Seriously, I think you're right on the money; I've never understood the preoccupation with making sure a rotation has left-handed starters.  The only time it makes sense to me is when you have an unbalanced schedule and your main rival(s) is loaded with lefthanded hitters.  Other than that, I think you're completely right.
In article <8966@blue.cis.pitt.edu> dtate+@pitt.edu (David M. Tate) writes: >Substituting irony for brains, (Bruce Klopfenstein) said: > >>dtate+@pitt.edu (David M. Tate) writes: > >>> Of *course* they left RBIs off; we're comparing Alomar the individual with >>> Baerga the individual, so only individual stats count.   > >>I forgot.  Most runs are scored by players stealing home, so RBI don't >>count for anything. > >Uh, right.  You also forgot that you can't get an RBI (barring a HR) with >nobody on base.  What fraction of all runs come on solo HR? > >Most runs are scored because there happened to be players on base when the >batter did something good.  I use the phrase "happened to be" advisedly. >Lots of people have tried to figure out who the players are who have the >most ability to "turn it up a notch" in clutch/RBI/whatever situations, and >what they've found is that there is no evidence that *anyone* has such an >ability to any measurable extent.  There are no clutch hitters.  People who >tend to do things that *would* cause an RBI if there were somebody on base >end up getting RBIs proportional to how many of their teammates obliged by >being in position.   > >>My mistake. > >I agree. > Me, too... RBI are a worthless stat. Of course, so is stolen bases because  sometimes runners are in front of a player that would otherwise run. And of course pitchers pitch differently with different people on different bases, so batting average, slugging and obp out, too.  Hmmm... i guess homers would not count then, either. My point? RBI might not be a perfect stat but nothing is. And no stat (or lack of) can tell me there are no clutch hitters. Maybe no stat CAN tell me, either, but some people are... I just know it!!! 8)
In <C51uC6.BL1@news.cso.uiuc.edu> ada41546@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Driftwood) writes:  >	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?  Oh, this is an easy trivia question.  The answer is "any Cub not named Sandberg or Grace."  >      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!
> Not clear to me at all.  I'd certainly rather have a team who was winning > 4-1 games than 2-1 games.  In the 2-1 game, luck is going to play a much > bigger role than in the 4-1 game.   But you still need the pitching staff to hold the opposing team to one run.
In article <mssC52rIL.8E0@netcom.com> mss@netcom.com (Mark Singer) writes: > Your speculation (and  >others) that Lopez will produce better than the two proven veterans >is nothing more than speculation, no matter how well founded.  Your speculation that the two proven veterans will produce better than Lopez is also no more than speculation.  It *does* make a difference whether the speculation is well-founded or not.    >Obviously, the Braves believe they can win with the catching they >have, and I agree.  If they change their minds, they'll call up Lopez.  Though this is a good point.  The one speculation is "safer", because it can be reversed.
In article <1993Apr15.161730.9903@cs.cornell.edu>, tedward@cs.cornell.edu (Edward [Ted] Fischer) writes... >  >Why are the Red Sox in first place?  Eight games into the season, they >already have two wins each from Clemens and Viola.  Clemens starts >again tonight, on three days rest. >  >What's up?  Are the Sox going with a four-man rotation?  Is this why >Hesketh was used in relief last night?  Clemens is going on his normal four days' rest (last pitched Saturday).  Hesketh only pitched one inning yesterday afternoon, his first outing since an aborted 1-1/3 inning start 6 days before, so he should be plenty rested to go in his expected turn this Saturday, as the 5th starter.  Not that this is a good thing, of course.  I'd like to see a well-managed four-man rotation with this team...   --- Glenn Waugaman Digital Equipment Corporation Littleton, MA g_waugaman@nac.enet.dec.com
In article <1993Apr21.172328.29720@bme.ri.ccf.org>, tknuth@bio.ri.ccf.org writes... >In article 1@acad.drake.edu, sbp002@acad.drake.edu () writes: >>Does anyone know the status of Jeffries or Arocha? >  >  >Arocha broke his finger trying to field a ground ball.    >He was put on the DL after the game and may require surgery.  The injury is to his fielding hand, which is good.  Unfortunately, he may have some ligament damage and may require surgery, which would lay him up for a while.  >I don't know about Jefferies  Apparently just a strain of some sort.  He hasn't been put on the DL, so it's probably just day-to-day.
ecaxron@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Ron Graham) writes:  >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.  I wonder why you say that?  I don't see why having a spouse and/or kids would have anything to do with it.  It might if you brought your kids to the game and wanted them to get home in time to get to bed at a reasonable hour (in which case I'd probably decide to take my kids to games on weekends, as many people do, or else be prepared to leave the game early), but from what you say later on, you don't bring your kids *or* your spouse to the game. As it happens, I have a husband but no kids, and my husband usually attends games with me.  >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.    I can see it's a problem if you don't bring your wife to the ballgame, but that's a problem even if the game goes a trim 2 1/2 hours.  As far as bagging work the next day, I don't really understand why that's necessary, unless going to a game also means that you consume vast quantities of beer (I note that this is the case for many guys). If you don't think you can get up to go to work after a long evening out, then don't have long evenings out during the week.  >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.  Look: if I pay between $8.00 and $20.00 apiece for tickets, plus $10.00  for parking, plus spending my time and energy driving to and from Boston,  plus spending additional money on concessions etc. at the ballpark, then  I see going to a game as a considerable investment of time and money. I can't afford to go to a lot of games.  Hence, going to a game is a big deal, like going to a play or an opera.  Maybe you have more money than  I do and can go to games all year long, so it's not such a big deal for you.   But I'm not interested in having games "sped up", any more than I want to have _Die Walkure_ cut down to a convenient "weeknight version" of two hours.  If I felt that going to a night game during the week would interfere  with my family life or my work life, then I'd choose to go to a weekend game.  IMPO.
What position does Mike Lansing play?  I cannot seem to find it   anywhere.  Thanks!!!!1  	K--> --
dans@fore.csd.sgi.com (Dan Steinman) writes: >Last night on the Giants/Mets radio broadcast Hank and Ted were >discussing the fact that there were only 16 players who had ever hit >200 homeruns and stolen 200 bases in their career (while HoJo was >batting).  Anyone have a list?  Not as easy as it sounds to come up >with all of them.  I couldn't.  Mays, Mantle, Aaron, Henderson, Morgan, >Bonds (Dad), ???  Frank Robinson?  Molitor?  Yount?  Guessing now.  I'd >be interested to see the whole list.  First, please watch your line lengths. Not everyone has autowrap.  Second, Franklin to the rescue! Here's the list: Player        HR  SB Aaron        755 240 Mays         660 338 FRobinson    586 204 RJackson     563 228 Winfield     406 216 * Dawson       377 304 * Baylor       338 285 BoBonds      332 461 Wynn         291 225 Strawberry   280 201 * Morgan       268 689 Pinson       256 309 Yount        235 247 * KGibson      208 253 * Sandberg     205 297 *  Players marked with an * are still active; numbers through 1991. That's only 15; the 16th is probably Rickey Henderson, who was listed at 184 HR, 994 SB or George Brett, listed as 186 SB, 291 HR.  The surprises? Probably Reggie, Bayor, and Wynn for steals. Maybe Morgan (to a lot of people) for homers. I was kind of surprised to realize that Sandberg has that many steals, though I wasn't surprised that the number was >200.   Mike Jones | AIX High-End Development | mjones@donald.aix.kingston.ibm.com
In <1993Apr15.123803.4618@webo.dg.com> lyford@dagny.webo.dg.com (Lyford Beverage) writes:  >In article <1993Apr13.202037.9485@cs.cornell.edu>, tedward@cs.cornell.edu (Edward [Ted] Fischer) writes: >|> In article <rudyC5Fr3q.1CL@netcom.com> rudy@netcom.com (Rudy Wade) writes: >|> >In article <C5FMxD.2pM@cs.dal.ca> niguma@ug.cs.dal.ca (Gord Niguma) writes: >|> >>reference to history because he certainly didn't have the best season for     >|> >>second basemen in history. He probably didn't even have as good a season as >|> >>Alomar last year. >|> >   >|> >What?  Do you have some measure (like popularity in Toronto doesn't count) >|> >that you are basing this statement on? >|>  >|> Uh, yes.  Baerga has a lot of flash, but Alomar was the better hitter >|> last year. >|>  >|> BATTERS        BA   SLG   OBP   G  AB   R   H  TB 2B 3B HR RBI  BB  SO SB CS  E >|> BAERGA,C     .312  .455  .354 161 657  92 205 299 32  1 20 105  35  76 10  2 19 >|> ALOMAR,R     .310  .427  .405 152 571 105 177 244 27  8  8  76  87  52 49  9  5 >|>   >This is fascinating.  You say that Alomar was the better hitter last  >year, and immediately follow that up with numbers showing that Baerga >had a better year.  The only category that I see which shows an advantage >for Alomar is OBP   Hmmm...what about walks and SB? Baerga got clobbered by Alomar in OBP and beat him in SLG by a lesser margin. Even putting aside any other factors, a player with a 51 point edge in OBP is more productive than a player with a 28 point edge in SLG. The issue has been studied before, and I doubt you could come up with any convincing argument the other way.  People see the batting average and the HR, but they don't really know   their value is worth unless they've studied the issue closely. The fact is that Baerga ate up a LOT more outs than Alomar; while Baerga was making outs, Alomar was drawing walks and being on base for Carter, Winfield et.al.
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.
Why did I get sucked into this?  In article <1993Apr19.035406.11473@news.yale.edu> (Austin Jacobs) writes: >Don't you GUYS think so?  I mean, c'mon!  What the heck are women doing >even THINKING of getting into baseball.  They cause so many problems.  Just  Assuming you're serious, I guess you'd be surprised to hear that us GUYS don't think so. I would guess that a tiny fraction of 1% of the folks reading your post agree with it. I kind of doubt that even you agree with it.  I'm not going to go through your points one at a time, because,  after all, not many of them have anything at all to do with baseball.  I'm only replying to this because you brought up Pam Postema, the AAA umpire who sued (is suing?) baseball on the grounds of sex discrimination because she wasn't promoted to the majors.  >Jeez!  Look at Pam Postema.  Just because she's a woman, everybody on the >face of the earth thinks it's great that she's getting an opportunity to >ump.  If you even watched the games and had an IQ greater than that of >roast beef, you'd see that she is not nearly as good as most AAA umpires.  I've never seen her ump a game. I have no first hand experience with her ability as an umpire.  But I have seen her on talk shows. And her point seems to be that she can call balls and strikes as well as any of the umpires and she knows the rulebook better than most. It seems to me that she is missing the point and if that's how she sees the role of umpires in the game, well I wouldn't promote her either.  The umpires primary role has nothing to do with calling baserunners safe or out; hell, Joe Lundy could do that. Their primary function is to maintain order in the game, keep the game moving, and keep the players from trying to kill each other.   Umpires have to be extremely tough people. That disqualifies most of us, both men and women. And if Ms. Postema thinks that she deserves to be a major league umpire because of her command of the rulebook, then I think that disqualifies her as well. Umpires need to command the game; command of the rulebook is secondary.