Let's reorganize rec.sport.baseball

Let's reorganize rec.sport.baseball

Post by Michael G. Burn » Sat, 04 May 1991 07:35:42


I know creating 29 new groups seems extreme, but...

Rec.sport.baseball is essentially unreadable.  I love the Red Sox, I hate
the Yankees, I have a soft spot for the Orioles, and I am in awe of the
Athletics.  I really don't give a hoot about the rest of the American
League, and I only watch the senior circuit come October.  I don't want
to Wade through 100+ articles a day to find the stuff that interests me.

So how about creating

        rec.sport.baseball.general
        rec.sport.baseball.national
        rec.sport.baseball.american

and one newsgroup for each team in the Majors (e.g., rec.sport.baseball.redsox,
rec.sport.baseball.yankees)?

I know I'd be happier...

                                Mike

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 
 
 

Let's reorganize rec.sport.baseball

Post by Nelson » Sat, 04 May 1991 11:11:39


Quote:
>I know creating 29 new groups seems extreme, but...

>Rec.sport.baseball is essentially unreadable.  I love the Red Sox, I hate
>the Yankees, I have a soft spot for the Orioles, and I am in awe of the
>Athletics.  I really don't give a hoot about the rest of the American
>League, and I only watch the senior circuit come October.  I don't want
>to Wade through 100+ articles a day to find the stuff that interests me.

>So how about creating

>    rec.sport.baseball.general
>    rec.sport.baseball.national
>    rec.sport.baseball.american

>and one newsgroup for each team in the Majors (e.g., rec.sport.baseball.redsox,
>rec.sport.baseball.yankees)?

>I know I'd be happier...

>                            Mike

If that is what will happen, then you have no business reading
rec.sport.baseball.  Splitting into 29 groups (or even 3) will make
it essentially unreadable.  It is not like the split of rec.sport.basketball
or rec.sport.football, where college and pro don't compete against each other,
and don't trade with each other.  (Yea, I think Boston should trade Larry
Bird to Stanford for Adam Keefe... :-))

==============================================================================

GO CALIFORNIA ANGELS!

GO LOS ANGELES CLIPPERS!

GO LOS ANGELES KINGS!

=============================================================================

Nelson Lu

 
 
 

Let's reorganize rec.sport.baseball

Post by Gym Z. Qui » Sun, 05 May 1991 04:54:25

While I don't read r.s.baseball, I have seen this phenomenon crop up
in many other newsgroups...


Quote:
>So how about creating

>    rec.sport.baseball.general
>    rec.sport.baseball.national
>    rec.sport.baseball.american

>and one newsgroup for each team in the Majors (e.g., rec.sport.baseball.redsox,
>rec.sport.baseball.yankees)?

>I know I'd be happier...

Aw!!!!  Poor lil' Mikey doesn't want to read stuff he isn't interested
in...and he robably doesn't know what the 'n' and 'k' keys are for
either!

Hey!!!  Why not create rec.sport.baseball.mikey?  That way, he can get
*only* the things he wants to read!!!

Quote:
>                            Mike

[I apologize for the inflamitory tone of the above, but I've seen so
many similar suggestions in rec.games.frp, rec.arts.sf-lovers, and
rec.arts.startrek (i.e."split the group up so that *I* only have to
read the stuff *I* want to") that I had to respond.]
--
Capt. Gym Z. Quirk  net.terrorist (reformed) |  This space

(Known to some as Taki Kogoma)               |  left blank

 
 
 

Let's reorganize rec.sport.baseball

Post by Michael M. Miskul » Sun, 05 May 1991 20:49:47


Quote:
>I know creating 29 new groups seems extreme, but...

>... So how about creating

>    rec.sport.baseball.general
>    rec.sport.baseball.national
>    rec.sport.baseball.american

>and one newsgroup for each team in the Majors (e.g., rec.sport.baseball.redsox,
>rec.sport.baseball.yankees)?

I think your original idea would be great - that is split up the group into
american, national and general.  As you said, the volume is quite high and
most of us don't read news outside our team/league except on occasion.

However, I think splitting into groups by team is going to the other
extreme and would be nonproductive.  

So a yes for three groups a no for team by team.

Mike

 
 
 

Let's reorganize rec.sport.baseball

Post by Chuq Von Rospach, only here for the be » Fri, 10 May 1991 06:37:06


Quote:
>One possible partition might be:

        Nah. Try:

        rec.sport.baseball.
                misc
                national
                american
                mets

--

     SFWA Nebula Awards Reports Editor    =+=    Editor, OtherRealms

Recommended: ORION IN THE DYING TIME Ben Bova (Tor, Aug, ***-); SACRED
VISIONS Greeley&Cassutt (Tor, Aug, ****+); MEN AT WORK George Will (****);
XENOCIDE Orson Scott Card (August, ****)

 
 
 

Let's reorganize rec.sport.baseball

Post by Michael Zimme » Thu, 09 May 1991 06:33:03


Quote:
>Aw!!!!  Poor lil' Mikey doesn't want to read stuff he isn't interested
>in...and he robably doesn't know what the 'n' and 'k' keys are for
>either!

This morning (after a day and a half of system downtime), I found 477
articles in r.s.b.  This is absolutely incontrovertable as evidence of
the need for splitting up the group.  Despite extremely liberal use of
the "k" key (which you might note that, for many people, isn't usable),
it simply took too damn long to get through.

We had the same discussion in football last year.  And no one could come
up with a good reason not to split the groups.  No one.  Just a lot of
blather about how it wasn't necessary.

SO:

If *anyone* can come up with a real, live reason not to split the group,
LET'S HEAR IT!  Otherwise, let's split it up posthaste!

 
 
 

Let's reorganize rec.sport.baseball

Post by Nelson » Fri, 10 May 1991 00:38:01

Quote:


>>Aw!!!!  Poor lil' Mikey doesn't want to read stuff he isn't interested
>>in...and he robably doesn't know what the 'n' and 'k' keys are for
>>either!

>This morning (after a day and a half of system downtime), I found 477
>articles in r.s.b.  This is absolutely incontrovertable as evidence of
>the need for splitting up the group.  Despite extremely liberal use of
>the "k" key (which you might note that, for many people, isn't usable),
>it simply took too damn long to get through.

>We had the same discussion in football last year.  And no one could come
>up with a good reason not to split the groups.  No one.  Just a lot of
>blather about how it wasn't necessary.

>SO:

>If *anyone* can come up with a real, live reason not to split the group,
>LET'S HEAR IT!  Otherwise, let's split it up posthaste!

Is there a really good reason to split the group?  I mean, there were always
people suggesting splits on basketball and football, but your suggestion was
the first that I heard in three years.

If you want a really good reason, then can you come up with a good reason that
this group must exist?  I mean, do you have to give an excellent reason for
doing everything?  I would except the splitter (not splitter*s* yet) to come
up with a better reason that that _he_ doesn't want to read everything...
How egocentric!  In any case, the 497 articles with the 1 1/2 day downtime
is only one time, and if you keep it up, then that is OK.  Most of us seem
to keep up with the group pretty well.  If you can't keep up, you shouldn't
blame the rest of us who do.

==============================================================================

GO CALIFORNIA ANGELS!

GO LOS ANGELES CLIPPERS!

GO LOS ANGELES KINGS!

=============================================================================

Nelson Lu

 
 
 

Let's reorganize rec.sport.baseball

Post by David M Ta » Thu, 09 May 1991 23:50:18

Quote:

>If *anyone* can come up with a real, live reason not to split the group,
>LET'S HEAR IT!  Otherwise, let's split it up posthaste!

My big problem with splitting the group is that it isn't clear how the
partition should be made.  In the football groups, the college/pro line
is pretty obvious; similarly for basketball.  But how much of the traffic
in this group is about college (or minor league) baseball?  Not much.

One possible partition might be:

        rec.sport.baseball.minors (minor leagues, college ball)
        rec.sport.baseball.stats  (discussion of sabermetric methods)
        rec.sport.baseball.roto   (interest group for roto/fantasy players)
        rec.sport.baseball.fan    (rooting, trade rumors, etc.)

and possibly others.  How many people out there would want to restrict
themselves to two or fewer of these?  If it isn't most of us, then there's
not really much point in splitting.

--
       David M. Tate        | "Your telegram has been sent, sir.  You should be

          Motto:            |  bags ahead to your hotel.  Where will you be
  Gramen artificiosum odi   |  staying?"           --Firesign Theater.

 
 
 

Let's reorganize rec.sport.baseball

Post by Sherri Nicho » Fri, 10 May 1991 02:07:44

Quote:

>We had the same discussion in football last year.  And no one could come
>up with a good reason not to split the groups.  No one.  Just a lot of
>blather about how it wasn't necessary.

>SO:

>If *anyone* can come up with a real, live reason not to split the group,
>LET'S HEAR IT!  Otherwise, let's split it up posthaste!

Rec.sport.football had the advantage that there was a clear and obvious way
to split the newsgroup: along college vs. pro lines.  These threads had
very little to do with each other except once a year at draft time.  The
proposed splitting for this group makes much less sense : along National
League vs. American League lines.  There are not clearly distinguishable
threads separating National League vs. American League discussions.  About
the only obvious separable threads I see are the card-collecting discussions
(which aren't that numerous), the trivia discussions, and (for the lack of
a better term) the evaluation discussions: who should Roger Craig be
putting in the rotation?  is Felix Fermin a reasonable answer at short?
Does overwork at a young age shorten a pitcher's career?  

I'm against the splitting of the group into national vs. american because I
don't think that's a natural splitting of the discussions that go on here.

Sherri Nichols

 
 
 

Let's reorganize rec.sport.baseball

Post by Patrick E Flemi » Fri, 10 May 1991 03:15:14

Quote:

>I'm against the splitting of the group into national vs. american because I
>don't think that's a natural splitting of the discussions that go on here.

>Sherri Nichols


Sherri has a good point here.  Perhaps a better proposal for splitting the
group would be:

    rec.sport.baseball (strategy, players, trades and other baseball news)
    rec.sport.baseball.stats (discussion and disimination of statistics)
    rec.sport.baseball.trivia (same for trivia)

     - Pat
.
--
- Patrick E. Fleming ---------------------------------------------------
- Department of Chemistry -------------- He wants us to give him -------
- The Ohio State University ------------ a sedigive! -------------------

 
 
 

Let's reorganize rec.sport.baseball

Post by CURRAN,SEAN PATRI » Fri, 10 May 1991 11:03:47

I definitely support the creation of rec.sport.baseball.college. Since the
current group is pro oriented, I dont bother to post any college news, but
I'm sure there are people out there who would be interested in scores, at
least.

--
Sean P. Curran    
LET'S GO BUCS!!!!
Pittsburgh Pirates -- 1990 NL East Champions
SIGN, Bobby, SIGN!!!! SIGN, Barry, SIGN!!!!

 
 
 

Let's reorganize rec.sport.baseball

Post by Jeffrey E. Prisbe » Fri, 10 May 1991 06:50:39

What happened to the Tiger Watch? does it still exist?

jeffp
.

 
 
 

Let's reorganize rec.sport.baseball

Post by Greg Frankl » Thu, 09 May 1991 20:03:01


Quote:
>One possible partition might be:

>    rec.sport.baseball.minors (minor leagues, college ball)
>    rec.sport.baseball.stats  (discussion of sabermetric methods)
>    rec.sport.baseball.roto   (interest group for roto/fantasy players)
>    rec.sport.baseball.fan    (rooting, trade rumors, etc.)

>and possibly others.  How many people out there would want to restrict
>themselves to two or fewer of these?  If it isn't most of us, then there's
>not really much point in splitting.

I strongly agree with your 4-part division.  Here is my proposal:

1)      rec.sport.baseball.college (college ball)

REASON: Since so many readers and posters are from warm weather universities,
this would invite them to talk a little bit about their school's different
programs, coaches, the College World Series, etc.  The pro baseball talk
wouldn't swamp the group.  No way would this group be DOA.

2)      rec.sport.baseball.stat-analysis (discussion of sabermetrics)

REASON: The advantage this has over .stats is that it clearly focuses the
group on discussion of how to use stats to understand baseball, instead of
on posting stats without comment.

3)      rec.sport.baseball.fantasy (rotisserie, fantasy ball SIG)

REASON: Less of an in-group term than "roto".  (Myself, I call them
"rot" leagues!)  .fantasy is the generic term, anyway.

4)      rec.sport.baseball.misc (general baseball talk, rumors, news)

REASON: I'd include minor league stuff in here, since (unlike college
ball) it is intimately tied up with the big leagues.  Otherwise most
everything beyond #1-3 should go here.

Now, would anyone like to start a formal RFD (Request for Discussion)?

Greg Franklin