THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

Have you read this?

http://nymag.com/news/sports/53975/

Compare this to Keith Hernandez, who couldn’t figure out why the Nats weren’t honoring the Expos history.

My co-blogger at RPBlog pretty much sums it up here: http://www.rationalpastime.com/2010/05/team-histories.html

As someone who always enjoyed the Expos and then moved to DC right before the Nats did, I was sad that they didn’t carry on the history of the franchise. This was mainly because it meant that the retired numbers and Youppi! would evaporate, and I understand why this has to be. It’s a great thing how the Habs have helped maintain the legacy of the old Montreal baseball club.

I thought Costas sucked last night, and I generally like him. He made a bunch of snarky comments and shit on Jeff Karstens all night, and he was just way too flowery about Strasburg, to an obnoxious degree. I thought bringing up Walter Johnson was ridiculous.

Just my take.

I disagree.  The franchise is the franchise.  It’s the Senators/Twins, the Senators/Rangers, the Expos/Nationals, not the Senators/Senators/Nationals.  That probably makes Johan Santana the greatest Senators pitcher since Walter Johnson.  Let’s not be like the NFL that makes stuff up as they go along.

For what station/channel/network was Costas working a baseball game?

Haven’t heard him do one for years.

#5 - MLB Network. He does a lot of work for them.

@David: Nobody’s making anything up. It’s a pretty general rule that if you discard the name/colors you discard the history as well. Carries pretty consistently through the NFL and MLB, with very very few exceptions.

Statistically, it’s silly to follow this line of thinking, because continuity is what’s important. But history’s a social construction, not a mathematical one, and this is the norm that tends to dictate it.

@Tango:  As a Seattle Sonics fan I agree 100%.
@Wells:  I think I’ve heard Costas do a game before and he wasn’t good then either.  He’s a fine host and interviewer, but his opining grates on me when he’s in the booth.  And the entire broadcast crew complaining about the press box being too high at the stadium was ridiculous.

What Trev said.  I appreciated the media this year talking about the Oklahoma City Thunder’s debut appearance in the playoffs. 

And as to, “the franchise is the franchise”, technically, the Boston Celtics are the Buffalo Braves/San Diego Clippers.  Irv Levin swapped the club and the corporate franchise remained with him.  I don’t think those banners are coming down from Boston Garden, though, any time soon.

J-Doug:  It’s not a general rule.

Some franchises hold on to history from previous cities, some don’t.
Baltimore Ravens act like they’re an expansion team, with no connection to records from Cleveland, nor do they pretend they are connected to the Colts. And the Nationals do the same with respect to Senators and Expos.

However…
The Raiders haven’t started their records over as they moved from Oakland to LA to Oakland.
The A’s still reference Philadelphia and KC in their records.
http://oakland.athletics.mlb.com/oak/history/timeline.jsp
Tennessee Titans include Oilers records as part of their history.
http://www.titansonline.com/team/history/history-1959-1969.html
Braves include Milwaukee and Boston in their history.
http://atlanta.braves.mlb.com/atl/history/index.jsp

Wait—I overlooked the fact that you said “if they discard name and colors.” That does seem to be the case.

Although now that I’m looking it up on mlb.com, the Twins and Rangers both include Senators records as part of their history.

Orioles include St. Louis Browns in their records.

Nationals also have Expos records listed (see Gary Carter get top billing on Nats history page: http://washington.nationals.mlb.com/was/history/ )

If mlb says they’re continuous, who are we to argue?

The Orioles seem to have an identity crisis.  They act like their history began in 1953 when it comes to telling the “story” of the club, but then their records and list of players goes back 100 years.

http://baltimore.orioles.mlb.com/bal/history/players.jsp

@Bowie: The statistical records that the league keeps and the way that the teams honor their history are two different things, and they adhere to different rules. I’m not saying this is appropriate, I’m just saying this is how it (almost always) goes).

I get it, sort of.  Don’t teams honor their history in part through records, all-time leaders and such? 
If your official team web site says the team’s history began in 1953, and it also says George Sisler is the all-time leader in triples and his last year was 1927, then color me confused.

And go look at the Nationals official team history page.  It’s an Expos extravaganza. They are clearly honoring their Montreal days, no question.

bowie: MLB.com has nothing at all to do with the Nationals or Expos.  MLB.com decides how to put the data together as they see fit.

The Nationals did not keep the retired numbers of the Expos.

@Bowie: But not in the park or in the programs. There is, however, a restaurant dedicated entirely to Walter Johnson and his win over the Giants in Game 7 of the 1924 WS.

Perhaps the most egregious example of team stealing is the Indianapolis Colts’ attempts to claim Johnny Unitas.  The Ravens have a statue of Unitas outside their stadium, and Unitas was Baltimore through and through.  Team history should stay in the city, and clubs should be forced by the league to change their nickname if they move (so we avoid the Utah Jazz and New Orleans Hornets - they really should just trade and make all the Salt Lake teams bee oriented).  Emotionally, the name and history belong to the fans.

Right, the history stays with the fan base.  Sometimes, that fan base moves or expands with a move of the team (presumably the Brooklyn Dodgers retained a big part of their fan base, even after the Mets come in).  And sometimes, the fan base is a clear separation (Montreal / Washington).

There are harder ones, and you’ll find them in the NHL.  The Oakland Seals become the Cleveland Barons who merge with the Minnesota North Stars who move to Dallas.  All in the span of 15 years.  Then a few years later, the Minnesota Wild come in.

Exactly who am I to tell the Minnesota fanbase how they should perceive their hockey history and, more importantly, legacy?  I’m not.  As an historian, you do a case-by-case analysis, and figure out where the legacy goes.

What about the Winnipeg Jets (WHA) joins the NHL (same name), who move to Phoenix (Coyotes), and… imagine they move back to Winnipeg.  If they don’t move back, it is two legacies / fanbase.  If they DO move back, well… that’s a tougher call.  It would depend on the number of years in-between.  Regardless, the Winnipeg fanbase will claim all of the Winnipeg history, and they MAY claim the Phoenix history (probably not).  The Phoenix fanbase would likely ONLY claim the Phoenix history.

With Montreal, it is crystal clear.  The Washington fans know it, the Montreal fans know it, and Bob Costas knows it.  Everyone else is who disagrees, frankly, is wrong.  It’s wrong, because you are applying your own standards as a third party, rather than the standards of those involved.  The analogy (*) is the U.N. writing the history of Poland/Russia, and Poles and Russians are required to follow the U.N. text books.

(*) Analogy.  As is, the subset of specific relevant elements that can be used.  I actually originally had Israel/Palestine, but I figured someone would object because they can’t get passed the idea of what an analogy is. 

You can also consider the Americans writing the history of the Natives.  That’s the analogy of baseball historians writing the Expos history, if they treat Montreal as being subsumed.

This is a strong argument, but I also have to disagree.  This is the sort of thing leading to the New York Mets putting a statue of Jackie Robinson, who never played for the Mets, outside their new stadium and otherwise trying to pass themselves off as the Brooklyn Dodgers.  Most New Yorkers, even a few Mets fans I know, realize that this is ridiculous and in poor taste.

To put it another way, when the Dodgers and Giants left New York did their history migrate to the Yankees (during the gap before the Mets came along).  The Yankees are in another league, but the Nationals are in a different league from the Senators and that doesn’t seem to have kept them from inheriting Walter Johnson.

I might have a different perspective coming from a multi-franchise city, but I think there is a difference between baseball history in a city, which by the way also includes minor league and Negro League teams that played in that city, and baseball history of an organization, which often migrates.  Since players and other team employees migrate with their teams, the latter is more important for statistical comparisons.

So Walter Johnson is part of Washington sports history, not Minneapolis sports history.  And he is part of Twins history but not Nationals history, which is why his number is retired in the Twins stadium though he may have never even visited Minneapolis.  Why is this so difficult?  Was the Expos relocation particularly painful?

As someone that has lived around the DC area most of his life, you really have to treat the Nationals as an expansion franchise that began in 2005.  What continuity is there with any Senators team? There is none.  As for the Expos question, MLB did everything in their power to gut the team before it relocated to DC.  Is anyone in Montreal still following the Nationals?  I sincerely doubt it.

It wasn’t a “relocation”.  MLB bought out the team, kept it for a few years in Montreal (and sometimes P.R.), and then sold it to new investors.  As far as I’m concerned, it was more like a contraction than a relocation.

And the “organization” when to Florida, when the owner, the scouts, the computers, and the scouting report followed him there.  Yeah, like ANY new owner of the Expos would have allowed that to happen.  MLB allowed proprietary materials of the Expos to be transferred to Florida.  And MLB allowed Brandon Phillips, Grady Sizemore, and Cliff Lee to be traded for a rental.  I can’t remember the last time the Expos traded away prospects.  Randy Johnson for Mark Langston maybe, when Bronfman wanted the one final push?

And yes, multi-team cities are different.

The only right answer is that there is no cookie-cutter solution.  If you can’t admit that, then we can’t talk about this.  We’ll have to agree to disagree.  If you can accept that there are mitigating circumstances, then we can have that discussion.

As someone that has lived around the DC area most of his life, you really have to treat the Nationals as an expansion franchise that began in 2005.

Right, exactly.  Montreal fanbase see it as a contraction.  I mean, the baseball fans there looked for a new team to support (Jays, Redsox, Yanks, Mets), basically the closest team, all within 6 hours, and on Cable to some extent.  Anyone who followed the Nationals did it for a year (like the ex-boyfriend-turned-stalker), and have at this point simply petered out.

And Washington sees it as an expansion.

The legacy of the Montreal and Washington fanbase belongs to Montreal and Washington.  Let them write their own history.  The U.N. history of Israel and Palestine can be thrown away.  The American history of Natives can be thrown away.  It’s meaningless.

Alright, I see what you’re saying. 
In 2010, a team’s web site is a primary mode of branding and identity.
It would be nice if their MLB-controlled web sites corresponded to how the teams choose to treat their history, especially since I believe the teams are not allowed to have their own web sites. 

Personal story…
My dad grew up in Houston as a big football fan.  Attended the first ever Oilers game. Loved Bum Phillips, all that.  Hated the Cowboys.  When the Oilers moved to TN, he was left without a team.  He would never switch his allegiance to Dallas.  So he awkwardly tried to root for the Titans. It was kind of sad. I tried to tell him, “Dad, they sh@t on you. They don’t want you as a fan. Don’t be a sucker.” That was probably rude of me, but I just couldn’t stand to hear him use the word “we” in reference to a franchise that had basically decided to divorce itself from fans like my dad and hooked up with a rich young bride instead.

"MLB-controlled web sites “

Right, that’s what it is.  Before the NHL took control of each team’s website, the Devils had their own leaderboard pages, etc, and it made no reference to the Rockies/Scouts.

Now, it’s centrally located, and the statheads lump the teams together.  When the Devils plan their anniversary parties, like “25th year”, their starting point, their year 1, is when they became the NJ Devils.

I didn’t check… did the Washington Nationals celebrate their 40year anniversary in MLB last year?

If it doesn’t walk like a duck and if it doesn’t quack like a duck, guess what?

#22 - I think the last paragraph is it.  With the Expos anyway it seems as about of unique of a situation as you can have.  For some franchises, ones that had a long history AND had players who were/are integral to the histories in both places, I think it is important to keep the “franchise”.

For example, Willie Mays.  He’s #1 all time amongst Giants in HR.  But he’s 3rd among NY Giants (Ott and Thompson ahead of him), and 3rd among SF Giants (Bonds and McCovey).  So where does Mays rank?  And the answer is...wherever you want him to!  If you’re a fan of the SF Giants and don’t care about their time in NY, you care that he’s #3 in SF.

Harmen Killebrew is a similar situation.  He hit less than 500 HR as a Twin, but he was only part of one franchise, and I doubt many Twins fans (though honestly I don’t know any) would say they don’t have any 500 HR hitters in their history.

What would be nice is for sites showing multi-city franchise leaderboards, to have a drop-down or something to filter the stats.  You only care about the Minnesota Twins?  Pick that.  You want to see from the Twins/Senators franchise?  You have that too.

Mike/27 (last paragraph): yes, exactly what I’ve been saying for years.

Let each person choose.

Statistically, it’s not necessary to follow this line of thinking, because continuity is what’s important. But history’s a social construction, not a mathematical one, and this is the norm that tends to dictate it. But it is very to person to person.

"because continuity is what’s important.”

Why would “statistically” this be true?  If you want to say “arbitrarily”, or “need to assign something that follows general rules”, then sure.

The records should stay with the city, no exceptions. The only time this has been done is with the new Cleveland Browns franchise. Why are they the only exception? So the Baltimore Orioles records should include, Baltimore teams from 1882-1899, 1901-1902, 1914-1915 (FL), and the current franchise (1954-2010). Johnny Unitas is the classic example why records should stay with the city. When the Colts moved to Indianapolis, Unitas (and many other former Colts) cut all ties with the franchise. Unitas wanted his records to remain in Baltimore.

And one city would be allowed to have more than 1 recognized franchise, when more than 1 team was active in a city over a certain amount of time. We wouldn’t want to mix the Boston Braves records with the Boston Red Sox records.

terps: there are always exceptions.

For example, what do you do when the NY Jets moved to NJ?  The NJ Devils moved from East Rutherford to Newark. 

The fanbase, not the arbitrary city and state and country lines, is what counts.

OK, I see your point about moving a small distances. This would be an exception. You could say any team that relocates within x number of miles gets to keep their franchise history.

“The fanbase, not the arbitrary city and state and county lines, is what counts.”

But how is the fanbase going to decide? And which fanbase will make the decision? The old fanbase, the new fanbase, or both?

You can’t do it by “miles”.  In NJ, everything is connected by highways.  In other places, you don’t have the highway infrastructure that NJ has.  Plus they have trains crisscrossing all over the place, and merging into NYC.

It would be based on time to travel and the kind of TV exposure.

***

If you have a new fanbase, you have a new legacy.  The Expos / Nationals fanbase intersect at less than 1%.  So, it’s two separate legacies, and you keep their histories separate (contraction / expansion).

Brooklyn / LA ?  I dunno… probably enough overlap that it’s the same legacy.

That’s why I’m saying you do it case-by-case… but consistent.

Well, the whole reason why I said it should be based solely on location, is that it could be enforced consistently. As long as you could do it consistently on a case-by-case basis, than I agree with you. Like you said, with Brooklyn/LA there is enough overlap to consider it one franchise. And with Montreal/Washington there isn’t enough overlap to really consider it as one distinct franchise. Another example I’ll throw out there, is Winnipeg/Phoenix in the NHL. There can’t be much overlap there.

On a side note, I believe the NBA let the city of Seattle keep their records and history when the franchise located to Oklahoma City after the 2008 season. And I mentioned earlier that the Cleveland Browns got to keep their records, history, and legacy when the team relocated to Baltimore. So maybe we are on the right track here. Yes, it has only been done twice in the last 15 years. But prior to this it had never been done.

And seeing that MLB bought out the Expos, well, they didn’t really give the City of Montreal an option to keep its history. 

Though, presumably they came to some little-known arrangement, seeing that Youppi and the Expos retired jerseys ARE in Montreal (at the Canadiens’ Bell Centre).

Do we REALLY need an official MLB press release to say that MLB has let Montreal keep its Expos history?  Are we that pedantic that we need Big Brother to confirm what Montrealers already know?

Oh, and I’d like to see the Nationals “throw back” uniform be to the 1969 Expos.

No?  I didn’t think so.

There, that’s the test.  Whatever throwback uniform a team is willing to wear… THAT’s the franchise that is part of its legacy.

On Neyer’s blog this morning he linked to somebody who wrote about the Orioles wearing St Louis Browns throwback unis a few years back when they played an interleague game in StL. 
http://masnsports.com/phil_wood/2010/06/making-new-seem-old.html

I lived in Baltimore for 5 years and I don’t recall any acknowledgment of the Browns.
So I guess some of these franchises have selective memories when it comes to their history.  Or perhaps they’ll try any gimmick their marketing dept can think up and not worry about records or consistency.

Already posted my thoughts on this matter, but I’d like to remind the readers that while the history of human civilization is a social construction, the history of a sports franchise is an economic one.

Teams employ history as a marketing tool, and in baseball the deeper the history the better. Considering this, it’s no wonder they’d choose Walter Johnson over Gary Carter and Andre Dawson (neither of whom seem to want to be associated with the Expos at all), and either of those over no history at all.

It’s also telling that they only tend to hark back to the first DC franchise (now the Twins), which was called the Nationals for most of its existence, rather than the second franchise (now the Rangers) which was officially the Senators and unarguably the worst franchise of the expansion era.

Also a few reponses to earlier posts:

1. The Habs (Montreal Hockey) got to keep Youppi! and hung the Expos’ retired unis in their arena, so Montreal does yet hold on to the Expos history.

2. There are a few Nats fans who wear Expos caps to the game, and I have seen them marketed as Nats throwbacks in the past. Red, White and Blue are the same colors no matter where you go.

3. The Expos were my #2 team since I started campaigning against contraction, and I got hooked. I moved to DC literally days before Washington was awarded the Expos. I see this as divine providence* and still feel that the Expos are connected to the Nats--Brad Wilkerson was my favorite player on both teams. Would I like to see the Nats play in Expos throwbacks? Hell yes.

*Sarcasm

Regarding Youppi!, the Canadiens purchased the rights to Youppi! from Washington—a straight business deal with no involvement from MLB (at least none publicized). Other than the use of the Expos logo, I don’t believe any agreement would have to be reached for the commemorative banner that the Habs raised.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=caple/050119

http://www.tsn.ca/story/print/?id=136521

Tom - the Nats are honoring Dawson - any thoughts?

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/nationalsjournal/2010/07/nationals_to_honor_andre_dawso.html?wprss=nationalsjournal

The Florida Marlins are also going to recognize him (their employee).

It’s likely the Nats are doing this only because it’s good marketing, and they’re timing it with the Marlins being there.  They simply are capitalizing on the timing of it, that’s all.

But, really, the Nats don’t care:
http://dc.sbnation.com/2010/7/26/1587088/andre-dawson-hall-of-fame-mlb-expos-nationals-cooperstown

“Dawson was one of the best players in this franchise’s history. Why wouldn’t the Nationals want to honor him as he’s inducted into the Hall of Fame? There are other non-D.C. based Hall of Famers on the columns on the concourse around Nationals Park--why not honor part of this franchise’s history by putting up murals of Dawson and Carter, Hall of Famers that actually played for this franchise?”

I agree here:

Ironically, he also noted that former Senators great Frank Howard’s number 33 hasn’t been worn by any player in D.C. since baseball’s return, whereas both Dawson’s No. 10 and Tim Raines’ No. 30, which the Expos retired, have been handed out to Nationals’ players.
...
“I replied as I have many times: I don’t see much reason to do it. When the franchise moved to Washington in 2005 and left the name ‘Expos’ in Montreal, I think they left behind that legacy. Yes, the Expos had some outstanding players in their 1969-2004 history; but not many Washington-area baseball fans can really relate to that. Heck, the number of area fans who still relate to the Senators is dwindling, but they still far outnumber Expos’ aficionados in the mid-Atlantic.”