Scoring Question

On Apr 19, 2:21 pm, Realto Margarino <r... DeleteThis @justlinux.ca> wrote:
> Richard R. Hershberger <rrhe... DeleteThis @acme.com> says:
>
> >On Apr 19, 1:56 am, Realto Margarino <r... DeleteThis @justlinux.ca> wrote:
> >> Richard R. Hershberger <rrhe... DeleteThis @acme.com> says:
>
> >> >On Apr 18, 5:38 pm, Realto Margarino <r... DeleteThis @justlinux.ca> wrote:
> >> >> Richard R. Hershberger <rrhe... DeleteThis @acme.com> says:
>
> >> >> [deletia]
>
> >> >> Are you the Jewish guy?
> >> >What?
>
> >> Are you the Jewish guy?
> >Who?  Who is this Jewish guy we're talking about?
>
> Are the Jewish guy?

What Jewish guy? Who are you talking about?
> Or are you the other guy?

What other guy?

>  Since you're to stupid to infer the obvious, the other guy isn't Jewish..

What other guy?

>And since the only thing that distinguishes you from the other guy is the
> religious issue, you're pretty much boxed in.

What religious issue? What are you talking about?

> No matter what you
> say, you are going to appear stupid.  But this has always been the
> case anyways and we're not about to take credit for something that
> is God's fault.

You aren't making any sense. Please try to be clearer.

> So whatever cleverness, even Jewish cleverness, you try to employ at
> this point will necessarily be non sequitur.  You're either the
> Jewish guy or the other guy.

What Jewish guy? And who is this other guy you are talking about?

> Either way, you can bugger off and you won't be missed.

Who won't be missed? Stop talking gibberish.
 >> Stay informed about: Scoring Question 

>>Anyone reading your response who knows me personally - as you do not -
>>will laugh their ass off. The key word in my response was "including."
>
> The only things we know about you are what you, yourself, have
> written. You told us that you have a great collection of statbooks,
> and the nature of your question clearly implies you know nothing
> about baseball.
>

Wrong. He said he had "hundreds of baseball books". A "baseball book",
by definition and without qualification, is a book about baseball. It
could be a book about baseball stats, or it could be a history of minor
league baseball in Texas, or it could be a book about how to properly hit
a baseball.

Your immediate conclusion that his entire collection of baseball books
were about statistics undermines your credibility, as it exposes your
anti-statistics agenda that you have hidden behind a facade of general
baseball interest.
 >> Stay informed about: Scoring Question 

On Apr 19, 3:06 pm, Steve Cutchen <max....DeleteThis@earthlink.net> wrote:
> In article
> <37fe9ca6-fb2c-4d93-b1ba-02a02afd8....DeleteThis@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
>
> <"cop...@yahoo.com"> wrote:
> > On Apr 17, 8:45 pm, B. Campbell <bobc....DeleteThis@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > Does a pinch runner get credit for scoring a run or does it go to
> > > the player who reached base originally?
>
> > Trivia: back when courtesy runners were allowed, the original player
> > got credit for the run scored, not the runner.
>
> > Brandon
>
> Well, that seems polite.

Apparently, though, a steal or caught stealing was creditied to the
courtesy runner.

Also, the player run for could return to the game when his team took
the field in the next half-inning.

I'm not sure when the rule was removed, but it survived into the
1930's.

Brandon
 >> Stay informed about: Scoring Question 

slidge.DeleteThis@slidge.com wrote:

>>>Anyone reading your response who knows me personally - as you do not -
>>>will laugh their ass off. The key word in my response was "including."
>>
>> The only things we know about you are what you, yourself, have
>> written. You told us that you have a great collection of statbooks,
>> and the nature of your question clearly implies you know nothing
>> about baseball.
>>
>
>Wrong. He said he had "hundreds of baseball books". A "baseball book",
>by definition and without qualification, is a book about baseball. It
>could be a book about baseball stats, or it could be a history of minor
>league baseball in Texas, or it could be a book about how to properly hit
>a baseball.
>
>Your immediate conclusion that his entire collection of baseball books
>were about statistics undermines your credibility, as it exposes your
>anti-statistics agenda that you have hidden behind a facade of general
>baseball interest.

Thanks for noticing.

Having been away from this newgroup for a couple years, I originally
thought "Well, this response is pretty rude." So I made a reply on
this thread.

Then, after reading about a dozen postings of his/hers within a couple
days, it became pretty obvious the agenda was to attack people just
to get a reaction.
This reduced the value of those postings to zero.
This is someone to be ignored.

Yes, I have a lot more than just Bill James.
I am finally reading Moneyball now and finding it interesting.
And there's a PBS thing on Clemente tonight. I got to see him play
live at Forbes Field a few times. What a treat.
 >> Stay informed about: Scoring Question 

In article
<eb12e6f9-f4ef-42eb-b73b-a2ba068556e7.TakeThisOut@u69g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
<"copeab@yahoo.com"> wrote:

> I'm not sure when the rule was removed, but it survived into the
> 1930's.

I have a 1943 MLB rulebook.

Rule 17, section 2 comment allows that, with the consent of the
opposing manager or captain, a player IN THE LINEUP may run for a
baserunner who may, notwithstanding such temporary substitution,
thereafter participate in the game.
 >> Stay informed about: Scoring Question 

<copeab DeleteThis @yahoo.com> pondered
>
> Apparently, though, a steal or caught stealing was creditied
> to the courtesy runner.
>
> Also, the player run for could return to the game when his
> team took the field in the next half-inning.
>
> I'm not sure when the rule was removed, but it survived
> into the 1930's.

Retrosheet has a list of documented courtesy runners, the last of whom
appeared in 1949. Courtesy runners were prohibited prior to the 1950
season.

The use of courtesy runners began during the amateur era
when substitutions were allowed only for injuries. By 1891
free substitutions were allowed, but the player substituted for
was ineligible to return. The concept of the courtesy runner
remained however, with the permission of the opposing team.

http://www.retrosheet.org/courtesy.htm

_A Game of Inches_ by Peter Morris discusses the evolution
of baseball's rule changes. A worthy addition to any baseball
library. http://tinyurl.com/5l638l

--
Don

Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are much more pliable.
~ Mark Twain
 >> Stay informed about: Scoring Question 

B. Campbell <bobc559.RemoveThis@bellsouth.net> writes:

>I have hundreds of baseball books, including about everything Bill
>James has written since 1986, but this was one of those things
>that I never really though about until I saw it happen the other
>night.

I have the official rules on MLB.com
(http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/official_info/official_rules/foreword.jsp)
bookmarked in my browser, and I also have a downloaded copy on my
computer at home. They're very handy to have around. Oddly, though,
that point doesn't seem to be directly addressed by the rules. They
go into great detail about when a batter gets credit for a RBI, but
they don't bother to mention that a PR gets credit for everything that
happens after he goes into the game, not the player he runs for. I
guess they just assumed that everyone knew that already.

--
Roger Moore | Master of Meaningless Trivia | (raj@alumni.caltech.edu)
There's no point in questioning authority if you don't listen to the answers.
 >> Stay informed about: Scoring Question 

slidge.RemoveThis@slidge.com says:

>Wrong. He said he had "hundreds of baseball books". A "baseball book",
>by definition and without qualification, is a book about baseball. It
>could be a book about baseball stats, or it could be a history of minor
>league baseball in Texas, or it could be a book about how to properly hit
>a baseball.

Baseball stats are certainly part of baseball. But we have examined
one or two of these "baseball statbooks" and so it is clear that
whatever these "baseball statbooks" talk about is not baseball.

>Your immediate conclusion that his entire collection of baseball books
>were about statistics undermines your credibility, as it exposes your
>anti-statistics agenda that you have hidden behind a facade of general
>baseball interest.

How could a baseball fan have an anti-statistics agenda? It's true
that we don't think that statistics fans have any business posting
to a baseball group, but that hardly means that we are against
baseball statistics. Statfan statistics, however, are not baseball
statistics.

And we have no biases.

cordially, as always,

rm
 >> Stay informed about: Scoring Question 

In article <4d435$480e5211$cf707752$1101@PRIMUS.CA>, Realto Margarino
<rm RemoveThis @justlinux.ca> wrote:

> Richard R. Hershberger <rrhersh RemoveThis @acme.com> says:
> >On Apr 21, 2:41 am, Realto Margarino <r... RemoveThis @justlinux.ca> wrote:
> >>
> >> Sorry, sweets, but we can't dumb it down anymore.
>
> >Who is this "sweets" person? You haven't talked about him before
> >now. Please be clear who you mean.
>
> Sweets is you.

Can y'all take this to alt.get.a.room.room.room please?
 >> Stay informed about: Scoring Question 

Steve Cutchen <maxfaq.RemoveThis@earthlink.net> says:
>In article <4d435$480e5211$cf707752$1101@PRIMUS.CA>, Realto Margarino
><rm.RemoveThis@justlinux.ca> wrote:

>> Richard R. Hershberger <rrhersh.RemoveThis@acme.com> says:
>> >On Apr 21, 2:41 am, Realto Margarino <r....RemoveThis@justlinux.ca> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Sorry, sweets, but we can't dumb it down anymore.
>>
>> >Who is this "sweets" person? You haven't talked about him before
>> >now. Please be clear who you mean.
>>
>> Sweets is you.

>Can y'all take this to alt.get.a.room.room.room please?

Well, sure, but we get tired of being the one who always has to pay
for the room, as well as the date.

cordially, as always,

rm
--
http://sports.jrank.org/pages/4065/Rose-Pete-Awards-Accomplishments.html
 >> Stay informed about: Scoring Question 

In article <354b8$480e966f$cf707752$25266@PRIMUS.CA>, Realto Margarino
<rm DeleteThis @justlinux.ca> wrote:

> Steve Cutchen <maxfaq DeleteThis @earthlink.net> says:
> >In article <4d435$480e5211$cf707752$1101@PRIMUS.CA>, Realto Margarino
> ><rm DeleteThis @justlinux.ca> wrote:
>
> >> Richard R. Hershberger <rrhersh DeleteThis @acme.com> says:
> >> >On Apr 21, 2:41 am, Realto Margarino <r... DeleteThis @justlinux.ca> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Sorry, sweets, but we can't dumb it down anymore.
> >>
> >> >Who is this "sweets" person? You haven't talked about him before
> >> >now. Please be clear who you mean.
> >>
> >> Sweets is you.
>
> >Can y'all take this to alt.get.a.room.room.room please?
>
> Well, sure, but we get tired of being the one who always has to pay
> for the room, as well as the date.

beggers can't be choosers.
 >> Stay informed about: Scoring Question 

In article <20080423132832.G9975.DeleteThis@mirage.skypoint.com>, John Gregory
<ashbury.DeleteThis@skypoint.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 22 Apr 2008, Steve Cutchen wrote:
>
> > In article <354b8$480e966f$cf707752$25266@PRIMUS.CA>, Realto Margarino
> > <rm.DeleteThis@justlinux.ca> wrote:
> >
> >> Steve Cutchen <maxfaq.DeleteThis@earthlink.net> says:
> >>> In article <4d435$480e5211$cf707752$1101@PRIMUS.CA>, Realto Margarino
> >>> <rm.DeleteThis@justlinux.ca> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Richard R. Hershberger <rrhersh.DeleteThis@acme.com> says:
> >>>>> On Apr 21, 2:41Ýam, Realto Margarino <r....DeleteThis@justlinux.ca> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Sorry, sweets, but we can't dumb it down anymore.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Who is this "sweets" person? You haven't talked about him before
> >>>>> now. Please be clear who you mean.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sweets is you.
> >>
> >>> Can y'all take this to alt.get.a.room.room.room please?
> >>
> >> Well, sure, but we get tired of being the one who always has to pay
> >> for the room, as well as the date.
> >
> > beggers can't be choosers.
>
> I assume you misspelled "buggers", given Maynard's habit of paying for
> rooms and calling grown men sweets.

Just be careful if he asks if he can push in your stool.
 >> Stay informed about: Scoring Question 

> Different types of people? What on earth are you talking about?

People like you, who get their kicks out of making unwarranted personal
attacks on the Usenet without reason. The only thing that you will get
out of it is that people won't bother to read what you really have to
state. We prefer to discuss things with reasonably mannered posters.


--
Newsoffice.de - Die Onlinesoftware zum Lesen und Schreiben im Usenet
Die Signatur läßt sich nach Belieben anpassen
 >> Stay informed about: Scoring Question