Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [baseball-databank] Re: Franchise and Continuity

Expand Messages
  • Tangotiger
    ... The NJ Devils do not include any of the pre-NJ stats in their lifetime totals. And if the NFL, for legal reasons or otherwise, declares a team to be a new
    Message 1 of 27 , Jun 24, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      --- Sean Lahman <sl@...> wrote:
      > taken place? I don't believe that a franchise
      > change can be effected by
      > decree (as the NFL has attempted to do with the
      > Cleveland Browns), but

      The NJ Devils do not include any of the pre-NJ stats
      in their lifetime totals. And if the NFL, for legal
      reasons or otherwise, declares a team to be a new
      franchise, then I'm not sure that we should say
      otherwise.

      > rather by meeting certain factual circumstances. By
      > every definition
      > that I would suggest, the Expos/Nats was clearly a
      > franchise move, not
      > the dissolution of one franchise and the birth of
      > another. The move

      When your ownership is given margin calls by a mad man
      so that that he can take control of a team to effect a
      move, it's not a typical "franchise move" (dude starts
      out with a 12 million$ investment, and ends up with
      over 90% of the team in a couple of years). As far
      the Montrealers are concerned, the franchise died.
      Contraction, usurpment, whatever. It's the same thing
      to us.

      > players are prominently featured in the "history"
      > section of their
      > official website, and the move and sale are
      > discussed in the timeline

      Yes, I see that. And, that would be an important
      consideration. Until I look at the 40-man roster:
      http://washington.nationals.mlb.com/team/roster_40man.jsp?c_id=was

      I don't know who Chris Booker is, but I know for darn
      sure that if a franchise truly has #30 retired, it
      wouldn't give that number away. Including Mike
      Stanton (according to the article), that's now 2
      players given Raines' number after being retired.
      Would the Phillies give Mike Schmidt to someone else?
      If they did, do you think that could last more than 1
      day?

      It's possible that the history page is as it is to
      give it "oomph". And that in 10 years, the Nats will
      say goodbye to Expos records.

      > I have no doubt that folks in Montreal don't root
      > for the Nats, but I'd
      > wager that is almost universal when a team moves. I
      > know the folks in
      > Baltimore *hate* the Indianapolis Colts, just to
      > name one recent
      > example. That can't be sufficient reason to define
      > a franchise break,
      > at least not in my mind.

      Expos fans don't hate the Nats. They are as
      indifferent to them as they would be to the Devil
      Rays.

      >
      > We already have a franchise ID to track the fact
      > that the Washington
      > Senators and Texas Rangers were one franchise, or
      > the
      > Philadelphia/Kansas City/Oakland Athletics, etc. I
      > don't see how we'd
      > be improving things by separating the Nats and Expos
      > into separate
      > franchise IDs, then adding a continuity ID to
      > re-link them.
      >

      The "improvement" would be a recognition of reality as
      les Quebecois see it. However, history is written by
      the victors.

      Tom



      ---------------------------------------------
      The Book--Playing The Percentages In Baseball
      http://www.InsideTheBook.com










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




      ____________________________________________________________________________________
      Need Mail bonding?
      Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users.
      http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396546091
    • KJOK
      Tom Tango wrote: What is needed is a Continuity ID which would keep the Nats/Expos linked (and the Devils/Rockies/ Scouts), since we have to reflect that
      Message 2 of 27 , Jun 24, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Tom Tango wrote: "What is needed is a "Continuity ID" which would keep
        the Nats/Expos linked (and the Devils/Rockies/ Scouts),
        since we have to reflect that reality as well (Expos
        players contracts transferred to the Nationals, or
        Rockies contracts transferred to the Devils). But, we
        also need to show that the Expos/Nats relationship was
        severed in the layman's sense."
         
        I think I would argue with Tom a little differently, in that what we have as "Franchise ID" to me, already really IS "Continuity ID".
         
        "Franchise" is really something that a particular LEAGUE owns, and grants as 'membership' in their group of teams.  If we were really following a definition of Franchise, then the Milwaukee Brewers technically became a 'new' franchise in 1998, as they moved as a team from membership in the AL to the NL.
         
        I don't think that's what we're trying to track with Franchise ID.  We're tying a baseball club/'team' (whatever that definition is) from one year to the next.  Calling it Team Continuity would probably be more accurate.
         
        For the 19th century, determining if a 'club' is the same 'team' from year to year gets tricky.   Somewhere back in the archives here I proposed what I thought should be the rules for determining if a team is NEW or is a continuation from a previous year's team.
         
        THANKS,
        Kevin Johnson

        Sean Forman <sean-forman@...> wrote:
        I tend to agree with Sean on this. The Green Book and other official league references include Raines and company in the Nationals all-time leaders, and while they've given the history short shrift they haven't jettisoned it like the Baltimore Ravens and others.

        sean forman

        On 6/24/07, Sean Lahman <sl@seanlahman. com> wrote:
        Tangotiger writes:
        > As historians, our job is to reflect reality. And the
        > reality is that the Montreal Expos franchise died in
        > 2004, and the Nats franchise was born in 2005.

        I agree with the first point, but not the second. Respectfully, I
        believe that calling the Nats and Expos separate franchises would not be
        reflecting reality, but rather inventing one.


        --
        --
        Sincerely,        
        Sean Forman

        Baseball Stats!  http://www.Baseball -Reference. com/
        SR Blog!           http://www.Baseball -Reference. com/blog/


        Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV's Comedy with an Edge to see what's on, when.

      • Tom Stillman
        ... I ll sometime correct someone at the ballpark if I feel they are receptive enough although I think I have wrecked some first dates when I ve corrected a
        Message 3 of 27 , Jun 25, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          --- Zach <fantasysportswire@...> wrote:

          > I also think its a historians responsibility to
          > reflect reality.

          I'll sometime correct someone at the ballpark if I
          feel they are receptive enough although I think I have
          wrecked some first dates when I've corrected a guy who
          has been blatantly wrong about a fact trying to
          impress his girlfriend. 8-)

          Tom Stillman




          ____________________________________________________________________________________
          Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games.
          http://get.games.yahoo.com/proddesc?gamekey=monopolyherenow
        • Tangotiger
          ... You ll have to educate me. I don t know what the story is there. ... That s always possible. And, it s certainly possible that the Montreal Expos of
          Message 4 of 27 , Jun 25, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            --- KJOK <kjokbaseball@...> wrote:

            > Tom:
            >
            > So, what is the reality of the Worcester Ruby Legs
            > franchise history after leaving Worcester? Is there
            > really a consensus 'public perception'?

            You'll have to educate me. I don't know what the
            story is there.


            >
            > Or, what if a new ownership group comes into
            > Washington and embraces their Expo past, changing
            > the 'public perception'?

            That's always possible. And, it's certainly possible
            that the Montreal Expos of 1969-2004 will belong to
            TWO fanbases. Reality is not a constant.

            For example, as the Nats blogger said, sometimes, the
            team itself looks at "Washington" players (including
            from past incarnations of Washington teams), and
            sometimes at the 1969-2007 set of Mtl/Was players, and
            sometimes just 2005+ players.


            >
            > I'm all for collecting more data, but I do think
            > there is a downside to what you're proposing - it's
            > already confusing enough that "FRANCHISE ID" is
            > really Team Continuity ID, but adding a nebulously
            > defined "FAN ID" could make things even MORE
            > confusing?
            >

            I don't think there's anything more confusing than
            giving the Brewers a different team ID simply because
            they change leagues. I prefer having a way to link
            the Brewers teamIDs without including the Pilots, etc.

            What would you do if a team came to this group (or to
            Lahman and Forman) and said "We'd like to have the
            complete MLB baseball records of Washington teams)?
            Well, you'd link the various team ID, and be on your
            way. You definitely wouldn't turn them away as it
            being too confusing a request. I'm simply suggesting
            creating the table for it.

            It seems to me then that we (I, I guess) should create
            a "FanTeam" table, that does what it is that I want it
            to do, and let others use it if they like.

            Thanks, Tom



            ---------------------------------------------
            The Book--Playing The Percentages In Baseball
            http://www.InsideTheBook.com










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



            ____________________________________________________________________________________
            TV dinner still cooling?
            Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.
            http://tv.yahoo.com/
          • KJOK
            ... Historically, there s been a bit of a debate about whether or not Worcester became the Philadelphia Phillies, and thus should be considered the same
            Message 5 of 27 , Jun 25, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              > > Tom:
              > >
              > > So, what is the reality of the Worcester Ruby Legs
              > > franchise history after leaving Worcester? Is there
              > > really a consensus 'public perception'?
              >
              > You'll have to educate me. I don't know what the
              > story is there.

              Historically, there's been a bit of a debate about whether or not
              Worcester became the Philadelphia Phillies, and thus should be
              considered the same 'franchise'.

              > What would you do if a team came to this group (or to
              > Lahman and Forman) and said "We'd like to have the
              > complete MLB baseball records of Washington teams)?
              > Well, you'd link the various team ID, and be on your
              > way. You definitely wouldn't turn them away as it
              > being too confusing a request. I'm simply suggesting
              > creating the table for it.
              >
              > It seems to me then that we (I, I guess) should create
              > a "FanTeam" table, that does what it is that I want it
              > to do, and let others use it if they like.

              Yes, I guess if all you're really proposing is linking all the teams
              that were based in the same city together under one code, that could
              be useful, and straightforward enough to not be confusing.

              So, under your ID system, would the 1872 NA Olympics and Nationals
              have the same "FanID"?

              THANKS,
              Kevin
            • Tangotiger
              ... It seems that there is one contingency of Washington fans that would include Walter Johnson and the 1901-1960 as part of their fanbase history. I don t
              Message 6 of 27 , Jun 26, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                --- KJOK <kjokbaseball@...> wrote:
                > Yes, I guess if all you're really proposing is
                > linking all the teams
                > that were based in the same city together under one
                > code, that could
                > be useful, and straightforward enough to not be
                > confusing.
                >
                > So, under your ID system, would the 1872 NA Olympics
                > and Nationals
                > have the same "FanID"?
                >

                It seems that there is one contingency of Washington
                fans that would include Walter Johnson and the
                1901-1960 as part of their fanbase history.

                I don't know what they think of any other Washington
                team prior to that.

                You introduce an additional parameter that really
                would apply to all teams. You could draw the line at
                1901 (or whenever the merge happened), or 1893 (when
                the rules mostly resemble today), or anything you
                want.

                Leaving that aside, if a fan was interested in
                "Washington MLB", then yes, I'd create a fanbase for
                that as well.

                One could extend that to say "NYC MLB", to include all
                incarnations of all teams to have played in NYC.

                Or in Canada, we'd be interested in "Canada MLB".
                There could be seemingly no end to the type of fanbase
                to construct. The Expos could belong to three
                fanbases (Montreal, Canada, Nats/Expos), etc.

                Like I said, as long as you have a group of people who
                are interested in these questions, there's no reason
                to make it harder for them to try to get to those
                answers. The solution to their (or my anyway) dilemna
                is not a 1-1 linear model.

                Tom






                ---------------------------------------------
                The Book--Playing The Percentages In Baseball
                http://www.InsideTheBook.com










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



                ____________________________________________________________________________________
                Building a website is a piece of cake. Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online.
                http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/webhosting
              • Sean Lahman
                ... Maybe I m just slow, but I still don t understand the objective of the proposed FanID . Is it to separate the Nats and the Expos into two separate
                Message 7 of 27 , Jun 26, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  > There is zero downside to my proposal, and it
                  > adds an extra layer of reality to how a fan sees a franchise.

                  Maybe I'm just slow, but I still don't understand the objective of the
                  proposed "FanID". Is it to separate the Nats and the Expos into two
                  separate groups? Is it to separate the Nats from the Senators? To do
                  both simultaneously?

                  Right now, as I see it, you can already do all of those things. You
                  can construct a query to get stats from just the Expos by searching on
                  teamID="Mon". You can search on just the Nationals by looking for
                  teamID="Was." And you can look for both sets of stats combined by
                  searching on franchID="Nat".

                  I think it would also help me if I could understand instances besides
                  the Expos/Nats to which your proposal would apply. Are their other
                  examples of teams that we consider to be part of one franchise that
                  you believe we should spearate with the proposed FanID?

                  --Sean Lahman
                • brad.behnke
                  There is already in the baseball-databank database a way to look this up. I have a page set up with the franchise history. The TeamID from the TEAMS table is
                  Message 8 of 27 , Jun 26, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    There is already in the baseball-databank database a way to look this
                    up. I have a page set up with the franchise history. The TeamID from
                    the TEAMS table is your individual team like Montreal has a TeamID of
                    MON and a franchID as WSN and the Nationals TeamID is WAS. If you
                    look at the chart you will see how it is grouped. The teamsfrancises
                    table is also connected in this table.

                    mySQL Query used:

                    SELECT disticnt(t.teamID), t.franchID, tf.franchName, group_concat
                    (distinct t.name seperator ', '), min(t.yearID, max(t.yearID),
                    t.lgID, tf.active FROM teams t, teamsfranchises tf WHERE
                    t.franchID=tf.franchID GROUP BY t.teamID ORDER BY 2,5

                    Take a look:
                    www.eagleeyecs.com/php/teams.php

                    --Brad

                    --- In baseball-databank@yahoogroups.com, "Sean Lahman" <slahman@...>
                    wrote:
                    >
                    > > There is zero downside to my proposal, and it
                    > > adds an extra layer of reality to how a fan sees a franchise.
                    >
                    > Maybe I'm just slow, but I still don't understand the objective of
                    the
                    > proposed "FanID". Is it to separate the Nats and the Expos into two
                    > separate groups? Is it to separate the Nats from the Senators? To
                    do
                    > both simultaneously?
                    >
                    > Right now, as I see it, you can already do all of those things. You
                    > can construct a query to get stats from just the Expos by searching
                    on
                    > teamID="Mon". You can search on just the Nationals by looking for
                    > teamID="Was." And you can look for both sets of stats combined by
                    > searching on franchID="Nat".
                    >
                    > I think it would also help me if I could understand instances
                    besides
                    > the Expos/Nats to which your proposal would apply. Are their other
                    > examples of teams that we consider to be part of one franchise that
                    > you believe we should spearate with the proposed FanID?
                    >
                    > --Sean Lahman
                    >
                  • Vinay Kumar
                    ... Yes, this is the key point. A single FanID associated with each team-season is a bad idea, because the assignment of teams to FanID s would be
                    Message 9 of 27 , Jun 26, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On 6/26/07, Tangotiger <tangotiger@...> wrote:

                      > Like I said, as long as you have a group of people who
                      > are interested in these questions, there's no reason
                      > to make it harder for them to try to get to those
                      > answers. The solution to their (or my anyway) dilemna
                      > is not a 1-1 linear model.

                      Yes, this is the key point. A single "FanID" associated with each
                      team-season is a bad idea, because the assignment of teams to FanID's
                      would be arbitrary. Instead, thinking of a FanID as a collection of
                      team-seasons works. Then people who are interested in looking at
                      things in different ways (i.e., somebody who wants to see all of the
                      Washington team-seasons since 1901) can easily query on that. And we
                      wouldn't have to settle on any single definition of a Fanbase ID --
                      there can be one for SF Giants only, and another for NY-SF Giants
                      combined.
                    • Theodore Turocy
                      ... But at the same time, the early 1900s Washington team, as well as the White Sox, as well as the Browns after they moved from Milwaukee, pointedly tried to
                      Message 10 of 27 , Jun 30, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On 6/26/07, Tangotiger <tangotiger@...> wrote:
                        > It seems that there is one contingency of Washington
                        > fans that would include Walter Johnson and the
                        > 1901-1960 as part of their fanbase history.
                        >
                        > I don't know what they think of any other Washington
                        > team prior to that.

                        But at the same time, the early 1900s Washington team, as well as the
                        White Sox, as well as the Browns after they moved from Milwaukee,
                        pointedly tried to invoke connection (and therefore fan support) by
                        adopting the nicknames of previous NL entries.

                        Given this, I don't see how a concept of "fan ID" could possibly be
                        well-defined.

                        TT
                        --
                        drarbiter@... - AMDG
                        Chadwick: Open Source Tools for Baseball Play-by-Play --
                        http://chadwick.sourceforge.net
                      • Tangotiger
                        ... As I said, you create a what we know. For every year, you carry certain information, like this: FRANCHISE_CHANGE 1,change in name (Y/N) 2,change in league
                        Message 11 of 27 , Jul 2, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment
                          > But at the same time, the early 1900s Washington team, as well as the
                          > White Sox, as well as the Browns after they moved from Milwaukee,
                          > pointedly tried to invoke connection (and therefore fan support) by
                          > adopting the nicknames of previous NL entries.
                          >
                          > Given this, I don't see how a concept of "fan ID" could possibly be
                          > well-defined.
                          >
                          > TT

                          As I said, you create a what we know. For every year, you carry certain
                          information, like this:

                          FRANCHISE_CHANGE
                          1,change in name (Y/N)
                          2,change in league (Y/N)
                          3,change in park (N/localMove/distantMove)
                          4,carryover in players (as a number)
                          5,carryover in retired numbers (Y/N)
                          6,decree of team that history is linked (Y/N/unknown)
                          7,...

                          So, for the Nats first year, you'd have something like:
                          2005,WAS,2004,MON,Y,N,D,20,N,U
                          2005,WAS,1960,WS1,N,N,L,0,N,U

                          Then, the user is free to create whatever definition of Franchise he so
                          chooses. (Since all Expos and most Nats fans want to see these two teams
                          separate, so be it. Since many or most Nats fans want to link the current
                          to the former Nats teams, so be it. Let this process reflect the
                          prevailing opinions and even counter-opinions.)

                          My point is to get the assistance of others who see the value here, in
                          creating a framework that makes this as flexible as possible. Obviously,
                          if you don't see any value, this isn't the party for you.

                          Tom
                        • Mike Emeigh
                          Tangotiger wrote: (snip) ... Is it really up to any one individual (or small subset of individuals) who sees value to invent something to be put into the
                          Message 12 of 27 , Jul 2, 2007
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Tangotiger wrote:
                            (snip)
                            >
                            > My point is to get the assistance of others who see the value here, in
                            > creating a framework that makes this as flexible as possible. Obviously,
                            > if you don't see any value, this isn't the party for you.

                            Is it really up to any one individual (or small subset of individuals)
                            who "sees value" to invent something to be put into the database? If the
                            community as a whole doesn't see the value, should it really go into the
                            database?
                            --
                            Mike Emeigh
                            piratefan1@...
                          • Tangotiger
                            ... Nothing has to go in the BDB database. This would be akin to KJOK s Parks database. You can link that in if you like, or ignore it. Tom ... The
                            Message 13 of 27 , Jul 2, 2007
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- Mike Emeigh <piratefan1@...> wrote:
                              > Tangotiger wrote:
                              > (snip)
                              > >
                              > > My point is to get the assistance of others who
                              > see the value here, in
                              > > creating a framework that makes this as flexible
                              > as possible. Obviously,
                              > > if you don't see any value, this isn't the party
                              > for you.
                              >
                              > Is it really up to any one individual (or small
                              > subset of individuals)
                              > who "sees value" to invent something to be put into
                              > the database? If the
                              > community as a whole doesn't see the value, should
                              > it really go into the
                              > database?
                              > --

                              Nothing has to go in the BDB database. This would be
                              akin to KJOK's Parks database. You can link that in
                              if you like, or ignore it.

                              Tom

                              ---------------------------------------------
                              The Book--Playing The Percentages In Baseball
                              http://www.InsideTheBook.com










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



                              ____________________________________________________________________________________
                              Get your own web address.
                              Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business.
                              http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/domains/?p=BESTDEAL
                            • Vinay Kumar
                              ... I think we ve agreed that it s not well-defined. If we lose the idea that there s a single Fan ID (or whatever we call it) per team-season, it doesn t
                              Message 14 of 27 , Jul 2, 2007
                              • 0 Attachment
                                On 6/30/07, Theodore Turocy <drarbiter@...> wrote:

                                > Given this, I don't see how a concept of "fan ID" could possibly be
                                > well-defined.

                                I think we've agreed that it's not well-defined. If we lose the idea
                                that there's a single "Fan ID" (or whatever we call it) per
                                team-season, it doesn't have to be. There can be an additional table
                                mapping "Fan ID"s (or FanbaseID or ContinuityID or whatever you call
                                it) to multiple team-seasons (with no restriction preventing a given
                                team-season from being associated with multiple FanbaseIDs). Create a
                                FanbaseID for all Washington teams, a FanbaseID that includes the NY
                                Giants and modern NY Mets, whatever. We can have as many FanbaseIDs
                                as we want; the community doesn't have to agree on the definition of
                                each one; instead people can create whatever they find useful.

                                Regarding Mike Emeigh's objection, I agree with Tangotiger's response
                                that this can be a user-maintained extension, and not part of the main
                                BDB, if that's what the community prefers.
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.