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

Re: Winter 1995, regular season 1995 (was Refresh my memory)

Expand Messages
  • ucraimx
    Just a side question: Is this transaction database available? MikeC ... Agbayani ... stats ... (I d ... the ... interpret them ... the
    Message 1 of 13 , Aug 1, 2002
      Just a side question:

      Is this transaction database available?

      MikeC



      --- In baseball-databank@y..., Derek Adair <dadair@i...> wrote:
      > On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, tom tom wrote:
      >
      > > That's an interesting question. What does Tom R's
      > > transaction database have? (My copy is on my work
      > > computer, but if someone knows off-hand...)
      >
      > Nothing related to replacement players. Charles Gipson and Benny
      Agbayani
      > (two examples) have nothing related to replacement status in their
      > entries. The transaction types also have no replacement info.
      >
      > > I think it's a mess to consider the spring training
      > > stats, or even regular season stats (say like the NFL)
      > > in the same class as the MLB players. Just because
      > > they are on MLB teams doesn't make them a "majors"
      > > class, regardless of what MLB and the NFL decide to
      > > designate them as such. They are an independent minor
      > > league level class.
      >
      > If we ever have spring training data, I see no reason why their
      stats
      > should not be included. We can deal with majors when that happens
      (I'd
      > imagine there would be some sort of ruling to determine records and
      the
      > like, and we'd adhere to that). I say keep the records and
      interpret them
      > differently if there's an extenuating circumstance; don't segregate
      the
      > data.
      >
      > Regards,
      > Derek Adair
      > dadair@i...
    • ucraimx
      I just saw the 1900 to present, but is anyone working on a Pre1900 (OR is that even available)? ... and ... segregate
      Message 2 of 13 , Aug 1, 2002
        I just saw the 1900 to present, but is anyone working on a Pre1900
        (OR is that even available)?


        Mike C--- In baseball-databank@y..., "ucraimx" <ucraimx@y...> wrote:
        > Just a side question:
        >
        > Is this transaction database available?
        >
        > MikeC
        >
        >
        >
        > --- In baseball-databank@y..., Derek Adair <dadair@i...> wrote:
        > > On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, tom tom wrote:
        > >
        > > > That's an interesting question. What does Tom R's
        > > > transaction database have? (My copy is on my work
        > > > computer, but if someone knows off-hand...)
        > >
        > > Nothing related to replacement players. Charles Gipson and Benny
        > Agbayani
        > > (two examples) have nothing related to replacement status in their
        > > entries. The transaction types also have no replacement info.
        > >
        > > > I think it's a mess to consider the spring training
        > > > stats, or even regular season stats (say like the NFL)
        > > > in the same class as the MLB players. Just because
        > > > they are on MLB teams doesn't make them a "majors"
        > > > class, regardless of what MLB and the NFL decide to
        > > > designate them as such. They are an independent minor
        > > > league level class.
        > >
        > > If we ever have spring training data, I see no reason why their
        > stats
        > > should not be included. We can deal with majors when that happens
        > (I'd
        > > imagine there would be some sort of ruling to determine records
        and
        > the
        > > like, and we'd adhere to that). I say keep the records and
        > interpret them
        > > differently if there's an extenuating circumstance; don't
        segregate
        > the
        > > data.
        > >
        > > Regards,
        > > Derek Adair
        > > dadair@i...
      • Paul Wendt
        ... The record for early 20th century is skimpy because much of the database comes from published sources whose complete or nearly-complete coverage begins
        Message 3 of 13 , Aug 1, 2002
          On Thu, 1 Aug 2002, ucraimx wrote:

          > I just saw the 1900 to present,

          The record for early 20th century is skimpy because much of the database
          comes from published sources whose complete or nearly-complete coverage
          begins later. The Rusie-Mathewson trade is included, and precisely dated
          1900-12-15, because it is famous. There were other trades, purchases, and
          releases in 1900 ;-)

          > but is anyone working on a Pre1900 (OR is that even available)?

          It is not available in one place, not even annually, if you mean a nearly
          complete paper record that needs only teeth-gritting transcription to
          digital. Here or at Retrolist, someone guestimated the completeness of
          annual and weekly (TSN) reporting of transactions at some early dates -
          but even those were early 20th century dates, as I recall.

          The Sporting News is weekly since 1886. Spalding's Base Ball Guide is
          annual since Spring 1877 or Spring 1876. The reasonably complete
          publication of transactions, weekly or annual, begins much later.
          In general, the transactions data must be recovered from daily newspapers.
          There will always be gaps, even for players who appeared in MLB games.

          At the annual public meeting of the 19th Century Cmtee five weeks ago,
          I introduced the Transactions Database and full Game Log (with Starting
          Pitchers), by briefly visiting the Transactions subset for trades
          http://retrosheet.org/transactions/trade.new
          and the Game Log for Boston AL1901
          http://retrosheet.org/boxesetc/VBOS1901.htm

          These projects need workers. They are among the "outside" projects (not
          organized by the 19c Cmtee) that I will introduce to people this year.

          -- P/\/ \/\/t

          Paul Wendt, Watertown MA, USA <pgw@...>
          Chair, 19th Century Committee, SABR
          Owner-Administrator, 19cBB (egroup at Yahoo)
        • Sean Lahman
          Adding my two cents on 19th century transactions... I think that it s important to note that trades did not become common place until the 20th century. The
          Message 4 of 13 , Aug 1, 2002
            Adding my two cents on 19th century transactions...

            I think that it's important to note that trades did not become common place
            until the 20th century. The 19th century teams were largely run by players,
            and while they sometimes jumped from one club to another, the concept of
            trading players just hadn't developed yet. Most of the 19th century
            transactions involve players being added to a roster or dropped from a
            roster, independent of anything else.

            --S
          • ucraimx
            I know that the 1900 American League is not recognized as a major league . I seem to recall it being talked about, and I m still searching some other
            Message 5 of 13 , Aug 29, 2002
              I know that the 1900 "American League" is not recognized as a "major
              league". I seem to recall it being talked about, and I'm still
              searching some other archives to piece it all together. Was their
              justification in possibly declaring it a major league? Was stats
              available for that year?

              Mike Crain
            • Paul Wendt
              ... I named it here as an example minor league. Sean Forman observed that it is not a priority but he will add AL1900 data and other minor league data. Tip: A
              Message 6 of 13 , Aug 29, 2002
                29 Aug 2002, ucraimx wrote:

                > I know that the 1900 "American League" is not recognized as a "major
                > league". I seem to recall it being talked about,

                I named it here as an example minor league. Sean Forman observed that it
                is not a priority but he will add AL1900 data and other minor league data.

                Tip: A search for "AL1900" or "1900AL" will sometimes hit.

                > and I'm still searching some other archives to piece it all together.
                > Was their justification in possibly declaring it a major league?
                > Was stats available for that year?

                Some paper sources for AL1900 data:
                1900 newspapers,
                1901 baseball guides,
                S.C. Thompson _All-Time Rosters of [MLB] Clubs_ (1967),
                David Nemec _The Great Encyclopedia of [19c MLB]_ (1997).

                Nemec acknowledges:

                "Most of the team vs. team and batting and pitching statistics were
                furnished by Bob Tiemann, Ray Nemec, and Bob Hoie, who have all done
                extensive research on the 1900 American League season." [p670]

                "As yet, complete fielding statistics are unavailable, as are accurate
                team batting and pitching statistics and accurate total games played at
                each position." [p671]

                _The Great Encyclopedia_ publishes some of those inaccurate statistics:
                team W-L, team Batting Avg, individual games played by team and position.
                The first-listed glaring imprecision is Chicago, second base:
                "Padden 130, Brain 1, O'Leary 1", where Chicago played 137 games. [p672]

                --
                I don't know any electronic source with full coverage of the players,
                not to mention full scope of playing statistics.

                "Regular Teams, American League 1900"
                http://world.std.com/~pgw/Deadball/al1900.html
                is my presentation of this and that. The heart is "three pitchers and
                eight regular players for each team, identified by [Joe] Wayman".

                Wayman, David Shiner, and Art Ahrens are three SABR members who have
                worked on AL1900, in addition to David Nemec's three acknowledged sources
                for statistics --Tiemann, R.Nemec, Hoie.

                -- P/\/ \/\/t

                Paul Wendt, Watertown MA, USA <pgw@...>
                Chair, 19th Century Committee, SABR
                Owner-Administrator, 19cBB (egroup at Yahoo)
              • Paul Wendt
                By the way, what has been decided about IDs for minor league players in the complete version of the bbdb? ... Ah, its minor league status has been debated for
                Message 7 of 13 , Sep 4, 2002
                  By the way, what has been decided about IDs for minor league players in
                  the complete version of the bbdb?

                  29 Aug 2002, Mike Crain asked and I replied:

                  > > I know that the 1900 "American League" is not recognized as a "major
                  > > league". I seem to recall it being talked about,

                  Ah, its minor league status has been debated for years. In my opinion,
                  the only good argument for calling AL1900 "major" is that that will spur
                  research on that league, and the 1899-1900 offseason.

                  > I named it here as an example minor league. Sean Forman observed that it
                  > is not a priority but he will add AL1900 data and other minor league data.
                  . . .
                  > Some paper sources for AL1900 data:
                  > 1900 newspapers,
                  > 1901 baseball guides,
                  > S.C. Thompson _All-Time Rosters of [MLB] Clubs_ (1967),
                  > David Nemec _The Great Encyclopedia of [19c MLB]_ (1997).
                  . . .
                  > I don't know any electronic source with full coverage of the players,
                  > not to mention full scope of playing statistics.

                  I compared the rosters (player names for each team-season) published by
                  Thompson and Nemec and sent the differences --one difference in each of
                  five teams-- to David Nemec with comments. I will pursue this with a
                  focus on whether there is a consensus among those who have studied AL1900,
                  regarding the list of players and their teams. If no consensus of the
                  experts, is a "best guess" clear to me?

                  Because 1900 is a gap in the MLB career of many players, and because of
                  what the reconstituted league accomplished, AL1900 should have some
                  priority over other minor leagues. Maybe the record of affiliations
                  between players and teams is valuable to others (it is to me), even
                  without playing statistics.

                  > "Regular Teams, American League 1900"
                  > http://world.std.com/~pgw/Deadball/al1900.html
                  > is my presentation of this and that. The heart is "three pitchers and
                  > eight regular players for each team, identified by [Joe] Wayman".

                  Wayman reported a count of 201 players and a count of 126 with NL
                  experience through 1900. By my count, Thompson listed 200 in 1967 and
                  David Nemec has 202, including Thompson's 200 and two others. For the
                  200 in common, the list of teams is identical.

                  -- P/\/ \/\/t

                  Paul Wendt, Watertown MA, USA <pgw@...>
                  Chair, 19th Century Committee, SABR
                  Owner-Administrator, 19cBB (egroup at Yahoo)
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.