THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

Are they really treated differently then “other defunct francishes”?  Only the buisness entities that folded are listed as their own defunct franchises.  The Senators, Browns, Philadelphia A’s, Boston Braves, etc. are all lumped in with the Twins, Rangers, Orioles, Oakland A’s, Atlanta Braves, etc.

Of course you are free to disagree with that practice as well, but the Expos are not an exception to the rule (maybe I’m misreading and you weren’t implying that they are, just that you don’t like the general practice).

When my football team, the Cleveland Browns moved to Baltimore, the NFL made them leave all of the records, logos, championships, etc. in Cleveland and treated the Baltimore Ravens as an expansion franchise for history’s sake.  But they only did this because they were commited to putting a new team in Cleveland...I think the LA Rams for instance are still considered part of the STL Rams and not their own entity.

Yes, I don’t like the practice in general.  There’s no question that if Montreal were to get another team, and that Montrealers would be asked to name their all-time team, it would include Raines, Dawson, and Carter.

Note that teams that didn’t morph into other teams are treated as their own franchise, not a footnote to others.

For what it’s worth, Gary Carter was selected in a nationwide poll as the Nationals’ franchise’s “Hometown Hero” last month.  Other candidates were Livan Hernandez, Jose Vidro, Brian Schneider, and Rusty Staub.

Related Article:
http://washington.nationals.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20060926&content_id=1683642&vkey=news_was&fext=.jsp&c_id=was

Thanks, very interesting.  So, those are the 5 hometown heroes.  That pretty much says it all, right there.

OK, if I was an Expos fan THAT would tick me off, because if you were making an all-time Expos top 5, you wouldn’t put Hernandez, Vidro, and Schneider on it.  That’s a horrific attempt to mix the Montreal with the Washington.  If they’re going to treat it all as one team, then pick the best five players, even though that’s going to be a bunch of guys who played in Montreal only.

The Washington “hometown heroes” should be Walter Johnson and Goose Goslin and Frank Howard, etc.

Who would be the Montreal/Washington top five then?  Who for just Montreal if that is what you think it should be?

Either way, I think Vidro easily makes a list of five.  Who else besides Tim Raines and Andre Dawson? Pedro’s stint? Randy Johnson’s early days? 

Just curious…

I’m no Expos history expert, but I would have:
Carter
Rogers
Vlad
Raines
Dawson

And that’s without looking anything up or thinking for more than a minute.  I think all of those guys are clearly more accomplished as Expos then Vidro.

Right, as well as Reardon, Larry Walker, Staub, Alou.  Dennis Martinez.  I wouldn’t say Pedro was a “stint” either, and I’d include him too. Vidro would probably be like Larry Parrish.

I forgot about Tim Wallach too.

I hope your blog entry was ironic.  The notion that Hank Aaron’s home runs for the Braves must be divided into Milwaukee and Atlanta pieces seems silly to me.  Do we also treat the Braves after they moved to Turner a separate franchise?  How far a move does it take to make a separate “franchise”?  I think part of the surface attractiveness of treating Montreal separately is simply the newness of the move (from a greater distance in time, the differences among the Boston, Milwaukee and Atlanta Braves seems reduced and the continuities greater).  And surely we are not starting a new “franchise” every time team ownership changes hands.

If Montreal-based fans want to keep separate records for their local heroes of the 1969 to 2004 era they are free to do so, but that seems a matter of specialized local interest of very little broader baseball interest.

I can’t speak for the rest.  Perhaps the Montreal situation is different, because of the liquidation aspect of it, with a corporate takeover, squeezing the local investors out of their profits while the main owner gets a sweet deal out of it, and then that team is transferred before new owners are found.

As Patriot said, the Cleveland / Baltimore situation is treated differently in the NFL as well.

People who have lost a franchise are the ones who should comment.  Like I said, conquerors rarely see a problem with how they treat their prey.

Montreal has zero interest in Washington.  Historians need to reflect that.

I don’t know how Brooklyn perceived the move to LA, and whether they considered the Dodgers still “their” team.

I would make a distinction between franchises that changed the name of the team when they changed locations.  The Dodgers, Giants, Braves, Athletics were trying to create a continuity between the teams of the past location and the teams in the new location.  The Twins/Senators, Rangers/Senators, Expos/Nationals, Orioles/Browns, etc. were obviously trying to create new identities and a break with the past.

You would have to be careful as well, as the Houston Astros, and various incarnations of the Angels will tell you.  Peter seems to have a fair rule of thumb, maybe not by the change in team name, but in the intent on changing the team name (and location).  There’s no question that Washington Nats and Montreal Expos are two different organizations.

Paul Wendt said he had a paper that discusses various considerations to classify a franchise.  Perhaps he can post some of his findings here.

We can learn alot more in the NHL, because franchise movement there was rampant in the 70s-90s.  For example, take the Winnipeg Jets, who started their life in the WHA, before being merged into the NHL, and then locating to Phoenix as the Coyotes.  The NHL Jets, if they were to include “franchise data” would certainly include the WHA Jets data long before including the NHL Phoenix Coyotes data. 

The same probably applies to the Quebec Nordiques, also in the WHA, and also moved, as the Colorado Avalanche.  However, the makeup of Colorado continued with the core players centered around Joe Sakic, and then included Patrick Roy, of the Montreal Canadiens.  A Quebec Nordiques fan would make it very easy to want to follow the Avs, and therefore, claim them as “their team”.

I agree with Peter that the basic premise rests on the “identity” of the team, however it is that is defined, whether with simple rules, or on a case-by-case basis that true historians should make.

Note: my blog, my rules.  Everything is fair game, except my family and my city.  Anyone wanting to knock Montreal better do it with thoughtful analysis.

Quickie to pile onto what Patriot said about Washington’s Hometown Heroes. Didn’t Josh Gibson, Buck Leonard, and Ray Brown (among others) have a long tenure on the Homestead DC teams?

If the assets of a business are transferred (in this case the player contracts) then it really is the same team. I think the only other choice is to call them an expansion team. And I think an expansion team is one that starts with no assets (player contracts). If a different owner buys a team and keeps it in that city, it is still the same team. If the team (for whatever reason) decides to move, it is still the same team.

It’s pretty bad in sports that some teams don’t recognize the past results a franchise had in a different city - The LA Lakers didn’t really recognize the Minneapolis team until the last few years.

The Phoenix Coyote history starts with the Winnipeg Jets joining the NHL, and mentions their tenure in the WHA.

http://www.phoenixcoyotes.com/team/team_history.php

Hockey people are usually classy, and that’s another sign.

However, I’m more interested to hear from people in Manitoba, as to how they see the Jets/Coyotes “franchise”, and if they now consider Wayne Gretzky as part of their franchise.

And from Coyotes fans, do they have “Dale Hawerchuk” night?

***

More interesting is Minnesota, which lost the Northstars to Dallas, and then had a new team with the Wild.  Do Minnesota fans see two franchises, or one?  Do they see Dallas as part of their first franchise?  Would they have Neal Broten as one of their greatest franchise players, or as part of the first franchise?

All comes back to identity.

I’ve voicing my displeasure to Sean here:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/183#comment-11528

========================================
I don’t see how the Expos/Nats is the same franchise, when there wouldn’t be a single Quebecer that would want to see a Montreal Expos Franchise book with Alfonso Soriano as the franchise seasonal leader in HR.

This gets to the heart of “what is a franchise”? I don’t know about the general feeling at the time for all those other franchises. And, it’s also not right to cast a one-size-fits-all solution.

In the NHL, the KC Scouts became the Colorado Rockies who became the NJ Devils. When people in NJ talk about the franchise and career leaders, it starts with the 1982/83 season. Here is how the official NJ Devils site lists their leaders:
http://www.newjerseydevils.com/njd/history/alltimestats/alltimeregular.php

(They’re all PDF files, but they start in 1982).

The 1982-83 is a *team*. The group of teams from 1982-2007 is the Devils Franchise. The group of teams from Scouts to Rockies to Devils is … I don’t know what it is. Call it a franchise as well.

At the very least, there is legitimacy in providing the data as I’m saying it, since this is how some teams are in fact recognizing it.

P.S. I should mention the KC Scouts started in 1974/75.
========================================

http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/sportsnation/pollingMLB?event_id=3535&action=2

Who is the all-time greatest in Nationals history?

1) Who is the all-time greatest player in Nationals history?

29.3% Andre Dawson (1976-1986)
20.9% Tim Raines (1979-1990)
19.4% Vladimir Guerrero (1996-2003)
15.1% Gary Carter (1974-1984)
7.0% Pedro Martinez (1994-1997)
2.9% Larry Walker (1989-1994)
1.9% Tim Wallach (1980-1992)
1.5% Dennis Martinez (1986-1993)
1.1% Andres Galaragga (1985-1991)
0.8% Steve Rogers (1973-1985)

“Hey Hawk!  Baseball fans think you are the greatest player in Nationals Franchise history!  We want to give you an award.”

- But, I never played in Washington.  Who setup the poll?

“Oh, we at ESPN think that the history of the Expos has been absorbed into Washington.”

- I’m not wearing a Nationals franchise cap.

“You don’t have to do that.  The Nationals franchise cap has changed.  You can wear the Expos one.”

- But, all 10 guys on the ballot are wearing an Expos cap.  What do the Nationals have to do with this?

“Don’t you understand?  We are numbers geeks, we create history by pigeon-holing everything.  Our nose flegm is dripping on Excel spreadsheets.  We get to make the rules, even if no one in Washington or Montreal cares for those rules!  Isn’t it great?”

- You mean Nationals fans don’t embrace Expos history?  They don’t think it’s a crying shame what happened in 81 and 94?  Their hearts didn’t overflow when Raines came back at the end, and they don’t have the lingering love for what the fans tried to do to Curtis Pride with his first hit?  Do they even know who Le Grand Orange is? And Montreal fans don’t follow the Nationals at all?

“Right.  All that is true.  But, it doesn’t matter.  Because we get to write history as we want it, even if the two cities who are at the center of the history don’t recognize us as authoritative historians.”

- Maybe you should have America write the history of Russia and Poland, and force those two countries to accept your findings as final, and all their primary textbooks will come from us.

“That’s on our todo.”

- Bye.

“Hawk, wait!  We need you!  F-ck Montreal, Hawk.  What did they ever do for you?  Washington retired your number remember?”

- No.  Montreal did, and it’s hanging at the rafters of the Bell Centre.  Ronnie Belliard was wearing my number.  Don’t call me again.

(A short time later.)

“Hello, Ronnie?  Have we got a proposition for you!”

I live on the Pennsylvania side of the Maryland border, so we get MASN, the television network that broadcasts Orioles and Nationals games. As far as I know, MASN treats the Nationals as a seperate franchise from the Expos. MASN has a series called Orioles and Nationals Classics, which shows classic games. None of these “Nationals Classics” games have featured the Expos. This could mean that MLB let Montreal keep their records. Sort of like what the NFL did when Baltimore stole the Browns from Cleveland. Although Baltimore, lost their records when the Colts moved to Indianapolis. How absurd is it that the Indianapolis record book include names such as Johnny Unitas, Lenny Moore, Artie Donovan, etc…

No Dennis Martinez perfect game?  No Blue Monday?  No May 2, 1987?  No Braves/Expos 94?

You can’t ram history into someone’s throat.  If the Nats don’t consider the Expos part of their history (as is their right), it’s not the job of historians to impose their will on Washington.

They obviously don’t respect the retired numbers of the Expos.

I had to look up the “Blue Monday” reference. I remember ESPN Classic showed this game a few years ago. I can’t believe it took them 10+ years to put the finishing touches on a retractable roof that would never work correctly. What a disaster Olympic Stadium turned out to be.

MLB obviously considers the stats of the Expos to belong to the Washington Nationals franchise (Washington Nationals Hitting Stats, Career All Time):
washington.nationals.mlb.com/stats/historical/player_stats.jsp?c_id=was&baseballScope=MON&teamPosCode=all&statType=Overview&sitSplit=&venueID=&timeFrame=3&timeSubFrame2=0&Submit=Submit

I wouldn’t necessarily say that MLB.com’s position is MLB’s official position.  It could be by happenstance.

For example, NHL.com merges the Scouts and Devils data today even though as my post above had shown they were separated. And the NJ Devils themselves never make mention of the Scouts and when they do their celebrations act as if the NJ version was the start of the franchise.

The Nats Media Guides has a few different sections for records:
-- post-’05. 
-- Franchise including Expos. 
-- Washington DC records

Most fans align themselves with the last of those.  Walter Johnson is our history, even if MLB says he’s a Twin.

That’s what I would expect.

If Montreal were to get a baseball team in 10 years, the fans would adopt the history of the Expos, regardless of how the team manages to get into Montreal (expansion, move).  Unless it was the Blue Jays, in which case, they would probably merge both (Expos and Jays).

Really, let the market forces dictate the continuity.  I like that the Nats media guide takes an agnostic position on the issue, and they are letting the fans choose.  As data providers, that is exactly what we should be doing.