waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
Come back ten years from now and look at the careers of Juan Gonzalez vs. Mark McGuire,  and then tell us how bogus the Juanderful one's 1992 HR title was.  I'd say that by 2003,  Juan will be preparing his HOF acceptance speech while the voters will be saying "Mark McWho?"
Could someone out there send me Pecota's stats for the last few years, or something to give me some sort of "feel" for what kind of player he is? My mind has no handle on him at all, it bothers me.  Pecota of the Braves, that is.  Pretty meaningful that I can't even come up with his first name, I think..
tedward@cs.cornell.edu (Edward [Ted] Fischer) writes:  >-Valentine >(No, I'm not going to be cordial.  Roger Maynard is a complete and >total dickhead.  Send me e-mail if you insist on details.)  In fact, he's a complete and total dickhead on at least 2 newsgroups (this one and rec.sport.hockey).  Since hockey season is almost over, he's back to being a dickhead in r.s.bb.
Just out of curiosity, what happened to the weekly AL and NL Game Score Reports?  I used to enjoy reading them throughout the summer for the last two years.  Inquisitively yours,  Joel
>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. >  >Whereis the Ray Lankford we saw last year???   I beg to differ, he had a couple 3 hit games after he came back.  He did get caught stealing though.  He also missed sunday's game.  Did he play tonight?  If not, I'm worried.  He's on my team too.
In article <1993Apr20.063339.10118@bnlux1.bnl.gov>, kyee@bnlux1.bnl.gov (kenton yee) writes: |>   |> Sunday's game exposed the weaknesses of both teams quite clearly, |> and that the Braves are vulnerable: |>  |> Braves' weaknesses: |> a)weak defense: a couple of Bond's doubles and a bloop by |>  Clayton would've been caught by a better outfield.   |> b)weak bullpen:  ha ha, their closers are Bedrosian and Howell!  Not an astute observation -- this is a straw-bullpen.  The lefties, Stanton & Mercker are strong, and Wohlers is down learning a new pitch. The bullpen is fine, probably superior.  |> c)over-reliance on Pendleton; a Pendleton slump becomes a team slump. |>   Also false.  Gant, Nixon, Justice, Hunter, Blauser present a decent enough offense.  EVERYONE is slumping (except Blauser), not just Pendleton.  BTW, what is the story with Brian Hunter?  Is he in the dog house?
In article <93122@hydra.gatech.EDU> re4@prism.gatech.EDU (RUSSELL EARNEST)   writes: > This brings back the long suffering memories of pre-chop Braves fans who > kept being promised the Bob Horner - Dale Murphy back to back power slam.   > Who could stop that?  Guess we'll never know.  Why not? Horner played 130 games in 1985 and hit 27 HR. Murphy played 162 and hit 37. In 1986 Horner hit 27 in 141 games and Murphy hit 29 in 160 games. (and the Braves lost 96 and 89 games).
In article <34592@oasys.dt.navy.mil> odell@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Bernard O'Dell) writes: >Being an old time Cardinal Fan-now relocated to the NVA area-I can >recall that Harry was not at all "popular" with old man Busch, who, >as I understand it, fired him and kicked him out of St. Louis. > >I am not quite sure of the reasons, but the old man was certainly >not "enraptured" by ole Harry. > >Bern O'Dell--  I grew up listening to Harry Carey call the Cardinals' games and really liked him--then. But, as I recall, he was fired because he was too critical (read: honest) when he was announcing. He dared to point out the Cards' miscues and such. At least, this is what I remember from when I was a kid.
In article <1993Apr15.212014.1782@news.acns.nwu.edu> edo@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Edward Ouellette) writes: >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)  But why would you want to use RBI?   RBI is an attempt to measure is some combination of clutch hitting and power hitting.  If you believe in clutch hitting, then look at how the guy hit with RISP.  If you want to see how good of a slugger he is, then look at his slugging average.    In terms of evaluating players, RBI totals are better than nothing.  But why use them when so many better stats are out there?
In <1993Apr21.020426.3316@adobe.com> snichols@adobe.com (Sherri Nichols) writes:  >In article <steph.735343286@pegasus.cs.uiuc.edu> steph@pegasus.cs.uiuc.edu (Dale Stephenson) writes: >>But in the past, a disputed strike call has been enough reason to step >>out of the batters box.  It may not be a good idea.  It may even irritate the >>umpire.  But I've seen it a lot, and I've seen it tolerated.  Just not this >>time.  >The key words here are "in the past".  Everybody was warned before the >season began that the umpires had been instructed to enforce the rule in >the interest of speeding up the game.    When I see this happening to other players, I'll post a public apology to Mr. Hirschbeck.  Until then, I think this was a case of "selective enforcement." --  Dale J. Stephenson |*| (steph@cs.uiuc.edu) |*| Baseball fanatic
In article <1psgriINNi1@rpco10.acslab.umbc.edu>, cs106116@umbc.edu (cs106116) writes: |>  |> Hey,  |>  |>    I was watching the Orioles' game on TV yesterday (Monday) |> when a report came in to the booth that the first 3 runs came |> in on a three-run single.  Did this really happen?  If it did, |> how?  They said that the leadoff man knocked them in.  What  |> exactly happened.  Thanks. |>   Walt Weiss tripled just barely inside the right field line and into the corner, driving in Santiago and Conine.  These were the first two RBIs.  The third came later when Weiss was knocked in.
>[All of Roger Maynard's drivel deleted] >--  > >cordially, as always,                      maynard@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca  >                                           "So many morons... >rm                                                   ...and so little time."     	Can't we just stick this guy in the FAQ and stop responding to him, guys? The last several flame-wars with him have been pretty much identical. Could someone just collect all the articles from this one, and simply re-post the entire block whenever he tries to start one? It'd be simpler. Roger apparently is one of those embarassing specimens who enjoys flames. Why give him what he wants?  	Oh, Roger.. You're dull.. very dull... You should get a new act.
In article <C5L40C.9LC@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, David Robert Walker writes:  > In article <8994@blue.cis.pitt.edu> traven@pitt.edu (Neal Traven) writes:  >>One also has to separate offense into batting and baserunning, with the >>split probably somewhere around 49.5% and 0.5%.  > I'd give baserunning a little more credit than that, maybe 45-5, or > even 40-10. Give a team of Roberto Alomar and a team of John Oleruds > identical batting stats (which wouldn't be that unreasonable), and > even if you don't let Roberto steal a single base, they'll score a lot > more than the Oleruds by going first-to-third more often. (No offense, > Gordon).  I wouldn't give baserunning that much value.  The above effect is clear, but there are other effects as well.  If Olerud hits a double, any runner on first will score; if Alomar legs an extra base onto a hit in the gap, the runner on first may need to hold at third.  Thus Olerud's doubles have more advancement value than Alomar's.  (Of course, Alomar is more likely to score after hitting a double.)  Another reason not to give too much extra value to baserunning is that the runs created formulas work for very fast and very slow teams.  No team in the 1950's ran much, but some teams certainly had faster players than others.  Still, the current runs created formulas work just as well in the 1950's for all teams.    Bill James gives the 1955-1958 Senators as an example.  They used Harmon Killebrew regularly as a pinch runner, and in 1957, stole 13 bases with 38 times caught stealing.  Yet they scored slightly more runs than predicted by Runs Created.
In article <1993Apr6.114106.156@corning.com> cecce_aj@corning.com writes: > Speaking of the Marlins winning the opener: >  > Based on lifetime percentage of games won, who has the second best   record > in baseball history (soon to be the best record again)? >  >  > If I had to guess I would be forced to say the Yankees.  On the other   hand > the Blue Jays might be up there too. >  > Hmmmmm.... >  > Tony
In article <C5srG2.Cpt@odin.corp.sgi.com> kubey@sgi.com (Ken Kubey) writes: >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.  But why McGwire, and not Carter?  I can see some justification for Bonds or Thomas, because they tend to have higher batting averages, but the major difference I see between McGwire and Carter is that Carter doesn't draw walks.  Why aren't pitchers afraid to throw strikes to Carter?
pb6755@csc.albany.edu (BROWN PHILIP H) writes:  >I watched the final inning of Bosio's no-hitter with several people at >work. After Vizquel made that barehanded grab of the chopper up the >middle, someone remarked that if he had fielded it with his glove, he >wouldn't have had time to throw Riles out. Yet, the throw beat Riles >by about two steps. I wonder how many others who watched the final out >think Vizquel had no choice but to make the play with his bare hand.  In this morning's paper (or was it on the radio?), Vizquel was quoted as saying that he could have fielded the ball with his glove and still easily thrown out Riles, that he barehanded it instead so as to make the final play more memorable.  Seems a litle cocky to me, but he made it work so he's entitled. --  Doug Dudgeon                             Dept. of Chemical Engineering, BF-10 dudgeon@opus.cheme.washington.edu        University of Washington, Seattle
The best one I saw last year was Willie McGee off Matthews (I think?) in Phillie.  A fierce line drive that was still rising when it hit thE second deck facade at the Vet.  Willie McGee had one homerun last year.
In article <C5JqBy.M7A@news.rich.bnr.ca> bratt@crchh7a9.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (John Bratt) writes: >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! >	---------------------------------------------  Right.  So who cares which PLAYER gets credited, as long as the TEAM gets more runs?  If a player helps the TEAM get more R and RBI, but  doesn't score them all himself, who cares?  Consider:  Player A: single. Player B: grounder to short; reaches on the force at 2nd. Player C: Double, B to 3rd. Player D: Sac fly.  B gets a run, D gets an RBI.  Are you *sure* they helped the team more than A and C?  Think hard, now.  >Flame Away  As you wish.
In article <C5r7tv.36s@odin.corp.sgi.com>, kubey@sgi.com (Ken Kubey) writes:  I don't |> blame players like Galarraga, Dawson and McGee when they swing at |> a strike and put the ball in play.  Well, no problem!  But I get pretty annoyed when they swing at non-strikes and make outs.  Especially ball four on the 3-2 counts...  Dave
In article <93095@hydra.gatech.EDU>, gt7469a@prism.gatech.EDU (Brian R. Landmann) writes: > Joe Torre has to be the worst manager in baseball. >  > For anyone who didn't see Sunday's game, >  > With a right hander pitching he decides to bench Lankform, a left handed > hitter and play jordan and gilkey, both right handers. >  > Later, in the ninth inning with the bases loaded and two outs he puts > lankford, a 300 hitter with power in as a pinch runner and uses Luis > Alicea, a 250 hitter with no power as a pinch hitter.  What the Hell > is he thinking.  Educate yourself before you rip on this years manager of the year. Lankford injured himself in a previous game and Torre was resting him.  As far as the Whitten/Gilkey controversy.  Whitten adds some more needed power, and if Jordan continues to hit the way he has been, Gilkey will find himself in the starting lineup soon enough.  Sam
In article <mssC50DFw.71u@netcom.com> mss@netcom.com (Mark Singer) writes: > >At age 23 Alomar had a brilliant rookie year.  True, he was limited >by injuries in his sophomore season, but his numbers both that yaer >and the year following were quite mediocre.  This season the same >Bill James projects a ba of .265, OPS of 675.    The same Bill James? Why do you say that? It sounds like you're suggesting  Bill James had something to do with overhyping the kid to death. Au contraire; he was fairly critical of him after his ROY campaign, noting that he wasn't all-world as a catcher or a hitter. He called him basically average when everyone *else* in the media was predicting the next Johnny Bench or Roy Campanella.   >Both of these young men were highly touted defensive catchers, >expected to be among the best ever in baseball.  The reports I >read indicate that Lopez is very ordinary defensively.    Which reports are those?   >The Dodgers options are Parrish and Hernandez, and now only Carlos. >Piazza is 24.  As long as he continues with his *very* hot bat, >they will keep him in the lineup because they need the offensive >production.  When he cools off, look for the much better defensive >catcher Hernandez (only 25) to play more.    I like Hernandez a lot, but if Piazza can catch the ball, you've gotta play him IMHO. He's a much better hitter, although Hernandez isn't a *bad* hitter. Right now, it sounds like Piazza will catch most of the time and Hernandez will be Candiotti's caddy since he can catch the knuckler. As long as they play up to their abilities, the Dodgers could have a very good catching tandem.    >The Braves options are Berryhill and Olson.  I agree that Olson is >nothing special, but I do think Berryhill is better than many  >people on rsb believe.  But both the Braves' catchers are very >good defensively (calling a game, blocking the plate, throwing) >and although they are somewhat weak offenivsively, they play on a team >that is not so much in need of another big bat.    I think both are overrated defensively (see Nichols' Law of catcher defense), but that's something that's difficult to prove or disprove from your viewpoint or mine. About the only tangible thing we can look at is opponent's SB%, and that's clouded by how well your pitchers hold runners. Catchers ERA is a possibility, but it's subject to way too many biases.     As for them 'playing on a team that is not so much in need of another big bat', I disagree here too. About the only chink in the Braves' armor is that they're weak offensively at several positions (CF, C, 2B, SS if Belliard plays, 1B unless Bream and Hunter form another super-platoon) and very weak  defensively if Blauser plays. I'd like to see the Braves give at least one of Mel Nieves, Javy Lopez or Chipper Jones a shot, but much like the talent-rich Jays of recent years they'll be conservative and stick with what they have.  I'm not saying that's wrong, just conservative.
In article <13615@news.duke.edu> fierkelab@bchm.biochem.duke.edu (Eric Roush) writes:  > In article <1993Apr19.214904.29499@Princeton.EDU> roger@crux.Princeton.EDU >(Roger Lustig) writes: >>In article <steph.735253341@pegasus.cs.uiuc.edu> steph@pegasus.cs.uiuc.edu >(Dale Stephenson) writes: >>>In <1993Apr18.204643.4404@Princeton.EDU> roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger >Lustig) writes:  >>>If black players can't survive being mediocre or worse, how can McRae >>>and Chamberlain be explained?  >>Nobody's saying it's a hard and fast rule.  My point is that white  >>players are *likely* to stick around longer if they're mediocre.  >>I went through TB III and made a list of 10-year OF and 1B who were  >>negative in both Adjusted Batting Runs and Total Player Rating.  TPR >>has some problems, but it's generally not too far off for a career, >>imho.  All players who played most of their career after 1960 were  >>considered.  >>Here are A through I (haven't done the rest yet):  >>Armas, Bailor, Balboni, Bannister, Beauchamp, Beniquez, Bergman, Berry, >>Biittner, Blair, Bochte, Bonnell, Bosley, Bradford, L. Brown, Buckner, >>Cabell, C.Castillo, Cater, Cimoli, Cline, Clines, Coles, D. Collins, >>Davalillo, Dernier, Dilone, Gaston, Geiger, Geronimo, Gosger, Heep, >>Iorg.  >>A few black players there; a *lot* of white and hispanic.  >Hmmm...one question...How do you differentiate hispanic and black? >After all, some people fall into both categories...Rafael Ramiriez >comes to mind...and he'd fit into this grouping also. >(oops...he's not an OF/1B...although he is a light-hitting >utility player.  Sorry about that.  But Miguel Dilone would >qualify, if I remember correctly.)  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.    >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  includes huge, long-term, global tensions regarding the black minority;  the hispanic minority, while often discriminated against, has never been the object of national obsession.  >It might also be worth your while to subdivide the data into careers >starting at 10-year intervals.  I would think that your prediction >would be most true for careers starting in the 1960's and least true >for careers starting in the 1980's.  Of course, you'd also have to >compare total ML racial percentages for the era in question.  Absolutely.  As I said before, I expect that this effect is disappearing. But it certainly did exist, and all out talk of TWG's and all that is  not without some small reason.  >I'm of the opinion that your point is less valid today than it was >25 years ago, but I would be curious to see the data.  Well, there's the list.  Go for it!  I'll cull some more names as I go. I expect you're right, btw.
Somebody wrote: >How about changing team names! >Post your choices!  >Here I'll start: >How about the  >Baltimore Baseblazers >San Francisco Quakes  >Shawn - Go Rangers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  	Baltimore Baseblazers? Where the hell did you come up with that? The Orioles are not a base-stealing team except for Anderson. Besides we would never call them anything but the Baltimore Orioles. Why? The ballpark has all these orthologically (spelling error?) correct BALTIMORE ORIOLES all over the place. I bet you thought the bird is just an oriole. It's not. The bird was named after Lord Baltimore when Maryland was founded. They're called Baltimore Orioles. But the post is just a joke so why do I care what a non-O's fan thinks of us? But I still wonder where Baseblazers came from. San Diego Padres, now there's a name that needs to be changed. How is padre being used? As "Father" ie priest or "father" ie parents?
In article <93122@hydra.gatech.EDU> re4@prism.gatech.EDU (RUSSELL EARNEST) writes: >In article <1993Apr15.145753.21557@holos0.uucp>, lbr@holos0.uucp (Len Reed) writes: >> In article <C5Hq3o.G4p@tss.com> hanson@tss.com (Hanson Loo) writes:  >> >Didn't Bob Horner go straight from Arizona State Univ. >> >to the Atlanta Braves? I remember he had one great >> >month hitting dingers and then the next I heard >> >he was in Japan.  >> A month?  Well, he did have a short career--compared to what one might >> have expected for such a highly touted prospect--due to being injury prone, >> overweight, and having no work ethic.  But he certainly did not >> suffer from being rushed to the bigs.   >Sorry Len, this is exactly how he suffered from being rushed to the bigs. >Being overweight and having no work ethic, leading to being injury prone with >nothing to loose, might have been corrected in Richmond.  (Did you intend a  >smiley after your comment?)   If I remember correctly (Which is always in doubt), Horner's signing with the Braves was contingent on starting in Atlanta.  I think he could have gone back to Arizona St. for one more year if he hadn't signed.  Anyhow, the Braves did try to send him to Richmond once; it lead to a week-long walkout.  Methinks Horner had no work ethic before he was drafted, and minor league play wouldn't have helped. But his raw talent would have gotten him into the ML, and it did keep him there for a while, until he started falling on his wrists.
In article <mssC52qMx.768@netcom.com> mss@netcom.com (Mark Singer) writes: >Now, Keith Mitchell.  As I recall (no stat books handy - surprise!) >he jumped from AA to Atlanta in 1991.  He did so well that he was >returned to the minors, where he didn't do very well at all.  Now >his career is in jeopardy.  So how does he fit in with your  >point.  Good MLE's in AA.  Moved him right to the big club.  Now >he's one step away from being traded or moved out of baseball. >Duh.  Methinks you recall wrong. Mitchell hit close to .300 in Atlanta and  continued to walk alot after his promotion. He was then (I think) left off the playoff roster, and started the next year in the minors where even the Braves will tell you he underperformed because he was so mad at going back down.   he struggled last year, no doubt, but even the Braves blamed part of it on the demotion. I'd much rather have Mitchell than say Mark Whiten on the Cards.
In article <93095.172834IO21087@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> IO21087@MAINE.MAINE.EDU writes: >Being a baseball fan and a fan of the above mentioned band I was >wondering if anyone could clue me in on whether the Dead (or members >of) sang the national anthem at todays Giant opener? > >I would imagine that it is a bit too early for anyone to know, but >an answer would be greatly appreciated. > It is my understanding that the Dead will sing the NA at the Giants home opener on Mon. 4/12. The Giants are opening today in St. Louis.  luigi
In article 9IJ@news.cso.uiuc.edu, rap50204@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Underdog ) writes: > > >Can anyone out there tell me why they call left-handed pitchers  I dont know about the story but it comes from the fact that in most stadiums, the batter faces northeast and so when a pitcher is on the mound, his left arm is to the south, hence the term.
I need the box score from the April 15 game I believe the score was 5 to 4 if anyone can provide  it for me I would appreciate it....
I am finding the volume of stuff on rec.sport.baseball overwhelming -- ca. 200 posts/day.  An effect of this is that a backlog builds up, and many posts get dumped from my system.  I could probably fix that--but don't have the time to read them all in any event.  My guess is that mine is a common problem.  I have some ideas that would help:  1.  Each person generally post no more than one article/day. 2.  Limit the extent to which previous posts are reproduced     in posts. 3.  Don't post mindless `woofs,' or `anti-woofs,' e.g. "The     Jays are best!"  or  "The Jays suck." 4.  Don't respond to mindless posts, e.g.  "Jack Morris is     a better pitcher than Frank Viola because he's won a      World Series."  I know that you can use the `n' key to     get by these posts, but they bump interesting posts from     my disk. 5.  use the goddamn shift key etc it makes your posts easier     to read