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

2012 Marlins teamID

Expand Messages
  • railsplitter_44
    Hello, I m currently getting my personal database ready for the 2012 season and I like to keep it with the same player, team, and franchID s as the databank
    Message 1 of 8 , Feb 29, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello,

      I'm currently getting my personal database ready for the 2012 season and I like to keep it with the same player, team, and franchID's as the databank ID's.

      Does anyone what the Miami Marlins teamID will be? Also, will the franchID change or will it remain 'FLA'?

      Finally, any information on Retrosheet's teamIDretro or Baseball-Reference's teamIDBR would also help.

      Thanks in advance,
      Dan Hirsch
    • Sean Lahman
      My plan is to use MIA as the teamID for the Miami Marlins. Don t think BBRef or Retrosheet have weighed in yet. As far as the FranchiseID, my inclination is
      Message 2 of 8 , Mar 1, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        My plan is to use "MIA" as the teamID for the Miami Marlins. Don't think BBRef or Retrosheet have weighed in yet.

        As far as the FranchiseID, my inclination is to leave it as is for now.

        Regards,
        Sean 

        ---
        Sean Lahman
        http://seanlahman.com



      • Matthew Gargano
        Using standard database protocol, franchise ID should *never* change. Regardless of where the team moves.
        Message 3 of 8 , Mar 1, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          Using standard database protocol, franchise ID should never change. Regardless of where the team moves.

          On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 9:53 AM, Sean Lahman <sl@...> wrote:


          My plan is to use "MIA" as the teamID for the Miami Marlins. Don't think BBRef or Retrosheet have weighed in yet.

          As far as the FranchiseID, my inclination is to leave it as is for now.

          Regards,
          Sean 

          ---
          Sean Lahman
          http://seanlahman.com






        • Mike Emeigh
          I would expect Retrosheet to leave it alone, as was done when Anaheim became the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. Sent from my iPhone
          Message 4 of 8 , Mar 1, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            I would expect Retrosheet to leave it alone, as was done when Anaheim became the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim.

            Sent from my iPhone

            On Mar 1, 2012, at 9:53, Sean Lahman <sl@...> wrote:

             

            My plan is to use "MIA" as the teamID for the Miami Marlins. Don't think BBRef or Retrosheet have weighed in yet.


            As far as the FranchiseID, my inclination is to leave it as is for now.

            Regards,
            Sean 

            ---
            Sean Lahman
            http://seanlahman.com



          • KJOK
            First, I would strongly advise to leave the FranchiseID as is.   MIA is used as a team ID in the SABR minor league database , the last time being 1991 for
            Message 5 of 8 , Mar 1, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              First, I would strongly advise to leave the FranchiseID as is.
               
              "MIA" is used as a team ID in the 'SABR minor league database', the last time being 1991 for the Florida State League Miami Miracle.
               
              There's no specific problem that I know of in using MIA since no 2012 minor league team will have it, and the database does reuse minor league team IDs in different seasons (MIA is also used for the 1946-54 International League Miami Marlins for example), BUT when assigning minor league IDs we've always avoided using any Major League team IDs, so this will 'break convention' and be the first time we'll have an ID used by both major and minor league teams.
               
              THANKS,
              Kevin
              From: Sean Lahman <sl@...>
              To: baseball-databank@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2012 8:53 AM
              Subject: [baseball-databank] Re: 2012 Marlins teamID

               
              My plan is to use "MIA" as the teamID for the Miami Marlins. Don't think BBRef or Retrosheet have weighed in yet.

              As far as the FranchiseID, my inclination is to leave it as is for now.

              Regards,
              Sean 

              ---
              Sean Lahman
              http://seanlahman.com





            • Tangotiger
              There are several considerations in assigning a new ID. Here are a few: 1. Did the team substantially change its personnel? 2. Did the team change its name?
              Message 6 of 8 , Mar 1, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                There are several considerations in assigning a new ID. Here are a few:

                1. Did the team substantially change its personnel?
                2. Did the team change its name?
                3. Did the team move to a new park?
                3.a) If so, how far did it move?
                4. Was the team sold?

                I'm sure there's more, and if Paul Wendt and KJOK are around, I'm sure
                they can offer some.

                The constraint that the Lahman / BDB database has imposed is that we only
                have TWO possible results: teamID, which is a child of franchID.

                The reality is that we don't need to have those constraints. You can make
                a legitimate case that the Montreal Expos "franchise" died in 2004, and
                that the Nationals "franchise" was born for the 2005 season. (You can
                also make the case that they are one-and-the-same.) You can link them
                with a third id, say a "continuityID". You can also have a "locationID",
                so that the various Washington-area teams are linked to each other. (That
                is, there's no reason that it needs to be considered hierarchical.) If for
                example Montreal gets a new team, and they even call them the Expos, to
                the Montreal fans, it's one franchise, with a gap in-between. So, they
                share the same franchiseID, but not the same continuityID. The Nats and
                original Expos would share the same continuityID but not the same
                franchiseID.

                There are options that will give both sides all the information they need
                in the way they need it, without deciding who is right and who is wrong.
                We are data providers, not judges.

                But, we don't have that opportunity here, as we are limited to the
                constraints of teamID and franchID. For ther Marlins in particular, there
                is no choice other than to give them the same franchID. Indeed, based on
                all the above points I have, I don't see why you wouldn't give them the
                same franchID, even if we had continuityID and locationID at our disposal.
                The Marlins switch is one of the easy ones to handle.

                The Colts, the Dodgers, and many others require the use of more than the
                two fields at our disposal.

                Tom
              • KJOK
                Certainly, FRANCHISE ID is a misnomer, as a franchise is a property right - the privilege of a spot in the league granted BY the league. Team Continuity ID
                Message 7 of 8 , Mar 4, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  Certainly, FRANCHISE ID is a misnomer, as a franchise is a property right - the privilege of a spot in the league granted BY the league.
                  Team Continuity ID would be a better name for what is currently in the database.
                  It's mostly the 19th century where things get a little messy (the most famous probably being Cincinnati, and whether the Cincinnati "franchise" is the oldest in the major leagues, which is the official position of major league baseball, or whether the Braves and/or Cubs are actually the oldest remaining franchises.)
                   
                  Tom hit the major considerations, which I'll basically rehash and add to with some specific examples, and in each case you can ask yourself if team continuity has been established, or does it depend on some of the other numered items:
                   
                  1.  City - Example 1879/1880 Cincinnati  where city remained same, but many consider this a new franchise (new owners).  In 1891Cincinnati moved to Milwaukee in August.  They finished the original Cincinnati schedule, but only 5 players continued in Milwaukee, AND:
                   
                  This all only seems to have happened AFTER the team
                  disbanded, with a few players going to St. Louis AA, and King Kelly
                  going to Boston AA (and then jumping to Boston NL before playing a
                  game with Boston AA). The Milwaukee "ownership group" was actually
                  trying to purchase the AA Louisville team and move it to Milwaukee
                  when the Cincinnati team became "available" due to the disbanding.
                  2.  Park - The Hartford Dark Blues of 1877 played all of their home games at Union Grounds in Brooklyn, after playing in Hartford the previous season. 
                  3.  Club - The 1871 Chicago team disbanded after their park burned down.   Team 'returned' in 1874.  Two players plus the manager returned from 1871.
                  4.  League - Milwaukee moving from AL to NL, or Brooklyn/Pittsburgh/St. Louis from AA to NL.
                  5.  Roster Continuity - Example 1890 PL Philadelphia/1891 AA Philadelphia.  Six players from the PL1890 team played on 1891 AA (none from 1890 AA Phil) .
                  6.  Team Name - Example 1873 Washingon. 6 players (out of the 10 main players) plus the manager came from the 1872 Olympics.
                  7. Ownership (copying heavily from Gordon Hylton) - Ownership consists of a certain amount of tangible property as well as a set of intangible legal interests including a franchise, i.e., the right to operate a team in the league. The owner typically had to right to assign (i.e., sell) the team including the franchise rights to a new owner.  If a franchise right is exercised in City A in Year 1 and in City B in Year 2, by the same franchise holder or by a successor in interest then is team continuity maintained?  For example, in 1961, the Griffith family relocated their American League "franchise" from Washington to the Twin Cities. Had they released their entire 1960 roster and signed an entirely new set of players, the Senators would still have moved to Minneapolis in 1961.  Would team continuity be maintained in THAT case?
                   
                  THANKS,
                  Kevin
                  From: Tangotiger <tom@...>
                  To: baseball-databank@yahoogroups.com
                  Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2012 12:09 PM
                  Subject: Re: [baseball-databank] Re: 2012 Marlins teamID

                   
                  There are several considerations in assigning a new ID. Here are a few:

                  1. Did the team substantially change its personnel?
                  2. Did the team change its name?
                  3. Did the team move to a new park?
                  3.a) If so, how far did it move?
                  4. Was the team sold?

                  I'm sure there's more, and if Paul Wendt and KJOK are around, I'm sure
                  they can offer some.

                  The constraint that the Lahman / BDB database has imposed is that we only
                  have TWO possible results: teamID, which is a child of franchID.

                  The reality is that we don't need to have those constraints. You can make
                  a legitimate case that the Montreal Expos "franchise" died in 2004, and
                  that the Nationals "franchise" was born for the 2005 season. (You can
                  also make the case that they are one-and-the-same.) You can link them
                  with a third id, say a "continuityID". You can also have a "locationID",
                  so that the various Washington-area teams are linked to each other. (That
                  is, there's no reason that it needs to be considered hierarchical.) If for
                  example Montreal gets a new team, and they even call them the Expos, to
                  the Montreal fans, it's one franchise, with a gap in-between. So, they
                  share the same franchiseID, but not the same continuityID. The Nats and
                  original Expos would share the same continuityID but not the same
                  franchiseID.

                  There are options that will give both sides all the information they need
                  in the way they need it, without deciding who is right and who is wrong.
                  We are data providers, not judges.

                  But, we don't have that opportunity here, as we are limited to the
                  constraints of teamID and franchID. For ther Marlins in particular, there
                  is no choice other than to give them the same franchID. Indeed, based on
                  all the above points I have, I don't see why you wouldn't give them the
                  same franchID, even if we had continuityID and locationID at our disposal.
                  The Marlins switch is one of the easy ones to handle.

                  The Colts, the Dodgers, and many others require the use of more than the
                  two fields at our disposal.

                  Tom



                • KJOK
                  Retrosheet changed their minds and will be using TeamID MIA - I think we should do the same... THANKS, Kevin
                  Message 8 of 8 , Apr 10, 2012
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Retrosheet changed their minds and will be using TeamID MIA - I think we should do the same...

                    THANKS,
                    Kevin

                    --- In baseball-databank@yahoogroups.com, Matthew Gargano <mgargano@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Using standard database protocol, franchise ID should *never* change.
                    > Regardless of where the team moves.
                    >
                    > On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 9:53 AM, Sean Lahman <sl@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > My plan is to use "MIA" as the teamID for the Miami Marlins. Don't think
                    > > BBRef or Retrosheet have weighed in yet.
                    > >
                    > > As far as the FranchiseID, my inclination is to leave it as is for now.
                    > >
                    > > Regards,
                    > > Sean
                    > >
                    > > ---
                    > > Sean Lahman
                    > > http://seanlahman.com
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    >
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.