waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <1993Apr20.162615.8609@adobe.com> snichols@adobe.com (Sherri Nichols) writes: > >Haven't been to many A's games, have you? > >There's also a difference in how tolerant I am of long games if I'm >watching them on the tube, and if I'm going there in person.  For me, going >to an A's game has become a major commitment of time, one that I'm not >willing to make that often:  the length of their games is costing the A's >revenue from me. > I stopped going to A's games some years ago while I still lived inthe Bay Area for exactly this reason.  I believe the length of their games has been institutionalized by LaRussa/Duncan.  They encourage their pitchers to be overly deliberate, to throw to first often, to study the catchers' signals, and so on.  And almost every A's hitter takes a step out of the box after every pitch.  This is not, imo, a coincidence. This is planned.  And I hate it.  As for the Gant situation, I did not see the game or the replays.  But I do wonder.  What if Gant had requested a time out?  Would Hirschbeck have been required to give it to him?  Could he have denied the requst? For all he (the ump) knew, Gant could have had dirt in his eye.
In article <1qqob2INNqev@mizar.usc.edu> pcaster@mizar.usc.edu (Dodger) writes:   >Davis and Strawberry attributed their turn arounds to Reggie Smith, >the Dodger batting coach who flew in from Florida three days >ago and gave them a pep talk and some instruction.  Davis was >4-5 yesterday and had a couple more hits today.  Strawberry >had two hits yesterday and I believe he had two more today, with >two home runs.   Foolish me.  And here I thought it had something to do with the  fact that they were hitting against Wakefield, who had no "kncukle" to his ball that day, and Otto, who has no stuff.  I wonder if  Reggie gave the same pep talk and instruction to the rest of the lineup, who also suddenly came alive those two games.    --	The Beastmaster
In article <93109.145942IO20456@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> Ryan Robbins <IO20456@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> writes: >        If I were the manager, I'd argue that the runner was out of >        the base line since he was to the *left* of the first base >        line.  If the umps don't budge (which they won't:  they nev- >        er admit when they are wrong), I'd file a protest with the >        league. > >Rule 7.09(k) states: "It is interference by a batter or runner when - >in running the last half of the distance from home base to first base >... he runs outside the three-foot line, or inside (to the left of) >the foul line and, in the umpire's judgment, interferes with the field- >er taking the throw at first base..." > >The key word in the rule is "and." A runner isn't out just for running >out of the baseline. He's out for interfering with the fielding of the >ball or throw or fielding of the throw to first. Because the catcher >opted to throw the ball over the batter-runner's head, there's no inter- >ference. > > > So what is your definition of "interfering with the fielder taking the throw"?  The rule book certainly doesn't have a definiton or clarification, so it's possible to interpret the rule as saying that if the catcher has to alter his throw to avoid hitting the batter-runner, then again we have interference. You know, it seems that there is no way to apply this rule justly--if the catcher (or the pitcher, say Rob Dibble, for example) throws toward first and hits the runner running inside the baseline, the fielder takes the chance of being ejected.  Therefore he probably would throw around the runner or (your scenario) above him.  You should note that in our American Legion League, (which uses MLB rules) we interpret the rule to say in this very circumstance there IS interference per rule 7.09.
ma_ind25@blurt.oswego.edu wrote: : I believe that Rusty Staub was also a jewish ball-player : Also, Mordaci Brown back in the early 20th century.  He was a pitcher whose : nickname was "3 fingers" Brown....for obvious reasons....he had 3 fingers.  0 for 2, ma_ind25.  Daniel Patrick Staub is a Catholic school kid from Nawlins, Mordecai Brown a farm kid (probably Protestant) from somewhere in the Midwest. He lost those fingers in a farm machinery accident.  Jim Palmer isn't Jewish himself, but Mr. Jockey Shorts's adoptive  parents are.  Also, I'm not absolutely certain that Carew actually converted.  His wife and children certainly are Jewish.  --
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.  Jonathan Alboum UVA
Is it just me, or does Bichette look totally lost in the outfield?  He  misplayed Martinez fly-out into a double against the Expos, misplayed Alou's single into a triple (Alou tagged out at 3rd after over-sliding  the bag) and now he misplays another out into a 3 run triple...add in his wonderful batting average and we have one heck of a player!
In article <jfr2.733938351@Ra.MsState.Edu> jfr2@Ra.MsState.Edu (Jackie F.   Russell) writes: > psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes: > >Since I did so well last year, here's another shot at picking the winners > >and losers.  I'll skip the commentary on why I picked who to finish where > >due to lack of time for flame wars 8^)   >  >  > >	Kansas City	25.0 >  > I think KC has a much better shot at being in the top division than > the bottom. One word(Cone) should help things tremendously. I think > you are way off the mark here.  Another word (offense) makes them my pick for last too. (Well, there's also my policy of never picking a Buck Rodgers' team for last)  > >	Florida		12.0 > >	Chicago		20.0 >  > I dont know if an expansion team has ever finished "not last" but I think > this year might be a first if it hasnt ever happened. The Cubs are worse  The 1961 Angels were  1/2 game out of 7th. The Athletics and  expansion Senators finished tied for last.  The 1962 Colt 45's finshed 8th - ahead of the Cubs (the Mets were last). The 1969 Royals finshed 4th - ahead of the White Sox (the Pilots in last). The 1977 Mariners finished 6th - ahead of the Athletics(in last).  Apparently being an expansion team with a poor A's or Chicago  team around is a `good thing'  > >National League West >  > >	Cincinnati      ---- > >	Houston          5.0 > >	Atlanta          8.0 > ARGH! Here is where you are obviously dead wrong. Not since the Yankees of > the 20's and 30's has a team been so nicely setup as this years(and years  > to come) Braves. I don't think that the All-Star team will be able to beat   This may be an appropriate comparison. The 1929-31 Yankees finshed 2nd, 3rd and 2nd finshing  18, 16 and 13-1/2 games out of first.  In 1933,'34 and '35 they also finished second ( though they were only 7, 7 and 3 games out). Even great teams can lose - That's why they play the season. (on the other hand... I'm still picking the Braves to go all the way)
I've a curiousity --    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.  - Scotyy
In article <1993Apr20.035607.26095@newshub.ariel.yorku.ca> cs902043@ariel.yorku.ca (SHAWN LUDDINGTON) writes: >How about changing team names! >Post your choices! > >Here I'll start: >How about the  >Baltimore Baseblazers >San Francisco Quakes >Pittsburgh Sellouts> >Shawn - Go Rangers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! >
In article <C5JM0M.6Jw@cs.dal.ca>, niguma@ug.cs.dal.ca (Gord Niguma) writes: |> |>   Alomar fans left RBI fans and Runs off this list because they are dependant |> on the team. (To a large extent). If Frank Thomas hit first, he'd lose a LOT |> of RBI's; and anyways how many 2nd place hitters have you known to drive |> in 100 runs? Doesn't happen that often.....very unlikely with Devon White's |> ~.300 OBP in front of you... I'm pretty sure that Sandberg has done this at least once.  (I know someone will correct me if I'm wrong.)    RBIs and Runs scored are the two most important offensive statistics.  You can talk about OBP and SLG% all you want, but the fact remains:  	The team that scores more runs wins the game! 	---------------------------------------------  Flame Away  -- John Bratt
In article <1r93di$car@apple.com> chuq@apple.com (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: > >Some folks like to argue about theoretical details. I prefer to watch teams >win. When the Giants slip to third, then we can talk about how to re-arrange >the batting order. Until then, I think it's stupid to focus on what's wrong, >for the simple fact that IT'S WORKING AS IT IS.  This is a fine strategy if you expect to run away with the division. But the Giants are going to need every break they can get, if they want too hold that lead.  I don't think they can afford to be lackadaisical, and say "well it has worked pretty well so far, and while we might be able to improve the results, we don't think it is worth the risk".  >Mostly, though, the Giants are winning, and frankly, as long as that >continues, it's rather silly to second-guess their strategy. But evidently, >some folks would rather be right than be first.  The two tend to go hand in hand...
Yes, I could look it up but I prefer to post this question  to the net...  I read somewhere in a long forgotten article that the handsignals  used by major league umps were originally used to help a  deaf ball player by the name of "Dummy". Urban myth? True?  I gots ta know.
In article <1psbg8INNgjj@master.cs.rose-hulman.edu> rickert@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (John H. Rickert) writes: >In article <jfr2.733938351@Ra.MsState.Edu> jfr2@Ra.MsState.Edu (Jackie F.   >Russell) writes: >> psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:   > >> >National League West >>  >> >	Cincinnati      ---- >> >	Houston          5.0 >> >	Atlanta          8.0 >> ARGH! Here is where you are obviously dead wrong. Not since the Yankees of >> the 20's and 30's has a team been so nicely setup as this years(and years  >> to come) Braves. I don't think that the All-Star team will be able to beat  > >This may be an appropriate comparison. >The 1929-31 Yankees finshed 2nd, 3rd and 2nd finshing  >18, 16 and 13-1/2 games out of first.  >In 1933,'34 and '35 they also finished second ( though they were only >7, 7 and 3 games out). >Even great teams can lose - That's why they play the season. >(on the other hand... I'm still picking the Braves to go all the way) >  Um, surely you didn't intend to compare the '93 Reds with the 29 Philidelphia A's.  The Yankees were finishing 2nd to a team that was as good as the 26-28 Yankees, while the Yankees had aged some from their peak years.  Ruth and Gehrig couldn't play every position simultaneously.  IMO, given the various ages of the Braves and Reds this season, that the Braves will be closer to their peak, while the Reds have slightly passed their peak.  Also, if you're going to compare Braves and Yankees, a more appropriate comparison to the '93 Braves might be the '23 Yankees.   After falling short two years in a row in exciting World Series,  both teams won/will win the Series this year, despite the heroics of some old fart on the other team.  (Casey Stengel/ Dave Winfield???)  ------------------------------------------------------- Eric Roush		fierkelab@	bchm.biochem.duke.edu "I am a Marxist, of the Groucho sort" Grafitti, Paris, 1968  TANSTAAFL! (although the Internet comes close.)
> >Give Jackson a break...he lost about 10 pounds with that flu he had >when he was traded. >  DJ was a popular player in San Diego, Derek Bell was not faring well in the clubhouse at Toronto, so no matter how bad he looks now I still think it was a steal for the Jays just from the perspective of team chemistry. No statistic can describe it (sorry statheads) and since there are so many new faces in the clubhouse I think the Jays are still trying to find it.  (Insert the same comment into the Jack Morris v. Clemens WS Ring string)  Yet at first I was sad to see Derek go, still anticipating all of the talent they raved about at the beginning of last season.  I'm glad to see him faring well for the Padres though.
In article <mjones.735272252@fenway> mjones@donald.aix.kingston.ibm.com writes: >kubey@sgi.com (Ken Kubey) writes: >>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" > >This comes up periodically, and I just don't get it. Take, for example, Mark >McGwire. He walked 90 times in 1993. If that's not a potential great example >of what you're talking about then I don't know what is. Now let's look at >what happens when McGwire doesn't walk: >  75% of the time he made an out. >  10% of the time he hit a single. >  5% of the time he hit a double. >  10% of the time he hit a homer. >Now, you're pitching against McGwire. Would you trade 20 walks for 2 homers, >1 double, 2 singles, and 15 outs? I would. Why give him the base when you >can get him out 3 times out of 4?  I didn't say that pitcher's fear of throwing strikes to guys like McGwire, Bonds, and Frank Thomas was rational.   I just said that it exists.  >Then there are guys like Alex Cole, who has a career .363 OBP even >though he's never had a batting average over .300 (he did hit .300 in >227 AB in 1990) or hit a single home run. Yep, that's right, he's >*never* hit a homer in 916 AB's through the end of 1992. Who'd be >afraid to throw a strike to him?  I don't know Alex Cole's batting style at all.   Some questions: How tall is he? Does he go into a crouch like Rickey Hederson/Pete Rose? Does he foul off a lot of pitches like Brett Butler? Does he take 1 or 2 strikes in each at bat?  It could be the Cole has a good batting "eye". Look above, I said that *many* high OBP guys draw their walks because pitchers are afraid to throw a strike to them, not "all" high OBP guys.
<RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu> writes:  >In article <franjion.734996049@spot.Colorado.EDU>, franjion@spot.Colorado.EDU >(John Franjione) says: >> >>Also, I have the impression from reading this group and Bill James >>that Elias is a bunch of money-grubbing jerks whose mission is to >>charge as much as they can for baseball statistical info >>  >and bill james is not? yeah.  sure.  do you own "the bill james players >rating book"?  Uh, Bill James doesn't sell statistics.  He sells books with statistics, but he is not in the business of providing stats like Elias, STATS, Howe, Baseball workshop etc. are.
In <ekdfc.14.0@ttacs1.ttu.edu> ekdfc@ttacs1.ttu.edu (David Coons) writes: >In <1993Apr4.221228.17577@bsu-ucs> 00ecgillespi@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu writes:  >>I AM DOING A POSTITION PAPER ON THE DESIGNATED HITTER RULE. ANY INFORMATION >>OR EVEN OPINIONS WOULD BE GREATLY APPRECITATED. 00ECGILLESPIE "MAGIC"  >Should be rescinded.  The rules say baseball is a game between two teams of  >nine players each.  Let's keep it that way.  Not any more the rules don't say that.  So that's a pretty dumb argument.
Overall (career) 1.	Don Mattingly 2.	Don Mattingly 3.	Don Mattingly 4.	Don Mattingly 5.	Don Mattingly 6.	Don Mattingly 7.	Don Mattingly 8.	Don Mattingly 9.	Don Mattingly 10.	Don Mattingly 11.	Don Mattingly . . . . . . . . 50.	Don Mattingly
(Lyford "Frosty" Beverage) writes: |> 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.  Well, OBP is the most important offensive statistic, and by a big margin. 50 points of OBP is worth considerably more than 50 points of slugging. That being said, I still think Baerga was VERY SLIGHTLY better last year, but I think this is as close to a wash as you're likely to find.  I personally don't care much for Alomar's defense.  I don't think he's nearly as good as people make him out to be, and he can't turn the DP to save his life.  He comes across the bag improperly, and his release is slow.  Considering the high leverage of the DP, this is a shortcoming I can't overlook.  In the long term, I'd move Alomar to another position.  If the Jays could trade a hot Devon White for something, I'll be Alomar could be a hell of a CF.  In the long run, I think I'd rather have Jeff Kent at 2B and Alomar in CF than Alomar/White.
In article <1993Apr21.211230.12598@iscsvax.uni.edu>   reed5575@iscsvax.uni.edu writes: > In article <1993Apr19.143211.28086@alleg.edu>, luriem@alleg.edu(Michael   Lurie) The Liberalizer writes: > > In article <1993Apr14.203122.12367@iscsvax.uni.edu>   > > reed5575@iscsvax.uni.edu writes: >> > Uhhhhh. Winfield has a carrer slugging average of .480 > > CAREER >  > PEAK...NO > During Winfield's peak his slugging average was an average of 129 points   above > the league average. Mel Ott's is 278, Hank Aaron's is 266, and Frank   Robinson's > is 304. In their "worst" years of their peak, they are still better than > Winfield in his "best" peak year. Winfield's best is 158 above the   average. > Ott's worst is 164 above the average and Robinson's worst is 206 above   the > league average. >  > CAREER...NO > ..480 slugging...BIG DEAL > Many right fielders including Darryl Strawberry and Andre Dawson can   easliy > surpass this for a career slugging average. So unless there are some   REAL stats > that make winfield worthy of the team he won't even be allowed to be   water boy! >  > P.S. Eddie Gaedel is the water boy and his career on base percentage is   tons > better than winfield's. >     Check your facts....Andre dawson's career Slugging pct is in the .480's So is Winny's I would like to see your facts. Winny has probably done   better than 129 points above with a carrer SLG of 480. Check on more   important stats. DEFENSE, and HEART. BATTING AVERAGE. RBI's
In article <1993Apr1.234031.4950@leland.Stanford.EDU>, bohnert@leland.Stanford.EDU (matthew bohnert) writes:  |> I'm going to be in Cleveland Thursday, April 15 to Sunday, April 18. |> Does anybody know if the Tribe will be in town on those dates, and |> if so, who're they playing and if tickets are available?  The tribe will be in town from April 16 to the 19th. There are ALWAYS tickets available! (Though they are playing Toronto, and many Toronto fans make the trip to Cleveland as it is easier to get tickets in Cleveland than in Toronto.  Either way, I seriously doubt they will sell out until the end of the season.)
In article <C5JB3D.9nt@umassd.edu>, acsddc@smucs1.umassd.edu writes: |> I was wondering if anyone had any kind of Fenway Park gif. |> I would appreciate it if someone could send me one. |> Thanks in advance. |>  |> -Dan  Me too! And any Yankee Stadium gifs as well, please.  Thanx in advance,
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.  Bob
In article <15780004@hpspdla.spd.HP.COM> garyr@hpspdla.spd.HP.COM (Gary   Rosen) writes: > >(Thomas Miller) /  5:39 am  Apr 19, 1993 / >  >  > >  Does anyone else think that this weekend's four-game series was a > >really strange one? >  > Yeah, it was real strange if you think the Braves should be awarded the > NL West title without actually having to play the games. >  > - Gary Rosen       I didn't say that.  Did you say that?  Wow, I can't believe that anyone would think that the Braves (or any other team, for that matter) should get the title for free.  What a dolt that person would be, if that was what they thought.  Incredible.     --
In article <1993Apr21.012139.13444@Princeton.EDU> roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:  >When I say "black," I mean US-born black people for the purposes of this >discussion.  Hispanic players were in baseball before 1947, and one  >team in the 50's signed lots of hispanics because they went over better >with the local audience than blacks did.    What about black hispanics?  >>And why would more hispanics stick around than blacks? > >Don't know.  But remember: this is the country that had special racial 			    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >laws for one group and one group only: blacks.  Our national history   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  Man, you had better do some SERIOUS reading. I really, really doubt that you meant to say this.  Mike
In article <1993Apr5.101636.1@otago.ac.nz> guilford@otago.ac.nz writes: >In article <1993Apr4.030934.23187@Princeton.EDU>, roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes: >> In article <1993Apr4.133620.1@otago.ac.nz> guilford@otago.ac.nz writes:       BO JACKSON 1963             1988 KCR    437  106  16   4  23   28   29   7  .253   67  .243  .288  .455   1989 KCR    517  134  19   5  33   41   27  10  .274   92  .259  .314  .507   1990 KCR    405  110  17   1  27   44   16   9  .286   77  .272  .343  .519   1991 CWS     71   16   3   0   3   12    0   1  .240   10  .225  .337  .394     MAJ      1430  366  55  10  86  125   72  27  .270  246  .256  .316  .489     MAJ       598  153  23   4  36   52   30  11  This is what Jackson looked like in 88-91, with everything converted to a neutral park, on the basis of run production. His equivalent average started at .253 in 88, was up to .274 in 89 and 286 in 90. So let us say he had established, in his last two seasons, a .280 level of play.  That is good. Very good, in fact. But it probably doesn't make the top ten in the league. The 10th best EQA in the AL in 1992 was Dave Winfield's .296; Thomas was first at .350. First in the NL was Bonds, an incroyable .378; tenth was Bip Roberts, .297. But .280 is better than any season in the past five years by Joe Carter; it is about what Mattingly had in 1988 (.285); what Felix Jose had the last two years; just ahead of Time Raines' five-year average; better than Ryan Klesko's MLEs.   He got more attention from the media than was warranted from his baseball playing, though; his hype was a lot better than his hitting. That is the basis for the net.comments about him being overrated. The media would have you beleive he was a great hitter. I think he was a good, maybe very good hitter. He was IMO, something like the 30th best hitter in the majors.
Hank Greenberg was probably the greatest ever.  He was also subject to a lot of heckling from bigots on the opposing teams and in the stands, but it never seemed to affect his performance negatively.
csc2imd@cabell.vcu.edu (Ian M. Derby) writes:   >Since someone brought up sports radio, howabout sportswriting???  I happen to be a big fan of Jayson Stark.  He is a baseball writer for the  Philadelphia Inquirer.  Every tuesday he writes a "Week in Review" column.   He writes about unusual situations that occured during the week.  Unusual stats.  He has a section called "Kinerisms of the Week" which are stupid lines by Mets brodcaster Ralph Kiner.  Every year he has the LGTGAH contest. That stands for "Last guy to get a hit."  He also writes for Baseball  America.  That column is sort of a highlights of "Week in Review."  If you  can, check his column out sometime.  He might make you laugh.  Rob Koffler