Re: [baseball-databank] Re: Franchise and Continuity
> But at the same time, the early 1900s Washington team, as well as theAs I said, you create a what we know. For every year, you carry certain
> 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
information, like this:
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)
So, for the Nats first year, you'd have something like:
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.
- Tangotiger wrote:
>Is it really up to any one individual (or small subset of individuals)
> 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.
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
- --- Mike Emeigh <piratefan1@...> wrote:
> Tangotiger wrote:Nothing has to go in the BDB database. This would be
> > 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
akin to KJOK's Parks database. You can link that in
if you like, or ignore it.
The Book--Playing The Percentages In Baseball
Get your own web address.
Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business.
- On 6/30/07, Theodore Turocy <drarbiter@...> wrote:
> Given this, I don't see how a concept of "fan ID" could possibly beI 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.