Monday, January 24, 2005
A new record everyday!
There was a comment in a recent MLB.com Q&A that bothered me. I'll let you read.
Any chance that records held by the Senators will be added to the Nationals' record book? -- Ron C., Largo, Md.
Here's what Tavares said about the records last November: "... In our media guide, we're talking about having a page of records from the old Senators, a page of records from the Expos and a blank page writing our own records in Washington. This is a new team. The record is going forward here. We'll start with that."
The "Expos page" idea is unfortunate but I don't think this is out of line with what other franchises do. You appeal to your fan base as much as possible. Most don't give a damn where the team came from or what they did last year. That was something else that doesn't involve "their team". They want new unis, new logos, and new records. I can't blame the fans. Rooting for a team is a very personal thing. You protect it when people make fun of it. You don't want to share it with bandwagon fans. And you don't want to believe it once belonged to someone else. I imagine it would be like your new spouse keeping pictures of her ex around.
What bothers me is the inclusion of the Senators page. The Senators v.1 are the Twins, the Senators v.2 are the Rangers. Either of those teams should note the records of their franchise in the minimal way expected. This Nationals team has no ties to the Senators other than location. To honor them with a page in the stat-book as well as the Expos, would be giving them equal importance in this franchise's history, which is short-changing the 'Spos to a degree I can't go along with. The existence of the Expos allowed for the existence of the current DC team. The existence of the previous Senator franchises, at best stoked baseball memories in the over 50 set. At worst it showed DC was not a good baseball market. At least give the Expos a greater sense of importance in their own franchise.
Any chance that records held by the Senators will be added to the Nationals' record book? -- Ron C., Largo, Md.
Here's what Tavares said about the records last November: "... In our media guide, we're talking about having a page of records from the old Senators, a page of records from the Expos and a blank page writing our own records in Washington. This is a new team. The record is going forward here. We'll start with that."
The "Expos page" idea is unfortunate but I don't think this is out of line with what other franchises do. You appeal to your fan base as much as possible. Most don't give a damn where the team came from or what they did last year. That was something else that doesn't involve "their team". They want new unis, new logos, and new records. I can't blame the fans. Rooting for a team is a very personal thing. You protect it when people make fun of it. You don't want to share it with bandwagon fans. And you don't want to believe it once belonged to someone else. I imagine it would be like your new spouse keeping pictures of her ex around.
What bothers me is the inclusion of the Senators page. The Senators v.1 are the Twins, the Senators v.2 are the Rangers. Either of those teams should note the records of their franchise in the minimal way expected. This Nationals team has no ties to the Senators other than location. To honor them with a page in the stat-book as well as the Expos, would be giving them equal importance in this franchise's history, which is short-changing the 'Spos to a degree I can't go along with. The existence of the Expos allowed for the existence of the current DC team. The existence of the previous Senator franchises, at best stoked baseball memories in the over 50 set. At worst it showed DC was not a good baseball market. At least give the Expos a greater sense of importance in their own franchise.
Wednesday, January 19, 2005
Youippi!
Thank you Jim Caple. Thank you for keeping up with the Expos in some manner. Really he's the only one I've seen on the websites I frequent that did more than a passing "Too bad." article.
For your information, The Nationals are currently one of only 5 teams without a mascot and I assume they'll have one soon. The others are the Yankees, the Dodgers, the Cubs, and the Los Angeles, California, USA, Earth Angels Baseball Club Incorportaed of SouthEastern Anaheim, Ballpark District. (The Heightened Emotion Monkey of Rallying is not an official mascot) .
Cleveland is a thing called "Slider". The Red Sox have the god-awful "Wally the Green Monster" The White Sox is a mess called Southpaw, I can only assume named after the cheap beer he drinks. Take a look for yourself. Ones not there include the Reds "Gapper", Texas' "Rangers Capitan", KC's Sluggerrr (spelling correct - you see it's a LION!) , and San Fran's Lou Seal (I hear he won't come back where he belongs).
Hmmm I think it's time to rate the mascots.
For your information, The Nationals are currently one of only 5 teams without a mascot and I assume they'll have one soon. The others are the Yankees, the Dodgers, the Cubs, and the Los Angeles, California, USA, Earth Angels Baseball Club Incorportaed of SouthEastern Anaheim, Ballpark District. (The Heightened Emotion Monkey of Rallying is not an official mascot) .
Cleveland is a thing called "Slider". The Red Sox have the god-awful "Wally the Green Monster" The White Sox is a mess called Southpaw, I can only assume named after the cheap beer he drinks. Take a look for yourself. Ones not there include the Reds "Gapper", Texas' "Rangers Capitan", KC's Sluggerrr (spelling correct - you see it's a LION!) , and San Fran's Lou Seal (I hear he won't come back where he belongs).
Hmmm I think it's time to rate the mascots.
Youippi!
Thank you Jim Caple. Thank you for keeping up with the Expos in some manner. Really he's the only one I've seen on the websites I frequent that did more than a passing "Too bad." article.
For your information, The Nationals are currently one of only 5 teams without a mascot and I assume they'll have one soon. The others are the Yankees, the Dodgers, the Cubs, and the Los Angeles, California, USA, Earth Angels Baseball Club Incorportaed of SouthEastern Anaheim, Ballpark District. (The Heightened Emotion Monkey of Rallying is not an official mascot) .
Cleveland is a thing called "Slider". The Red Sox have the god-awful "Wally the Green Monster" The White Sox is a mess called Southpaw, I can only assume named after the cheap beer he drinks. Take a look for yourself. Ones not there include the Reds "Gapper", Texas' "Rangers Capitan", KC's Sluggerrr (spelling correct - you see it's a LION!) , and San Fran's Lou Seal (I hear he won't come back where he belongs).
Hmmm I think it's time to rate the mascots.
For your information, The Nationals are currently one of only 5 teams without a mascot and I assume they'll have one soon. The others are the Yankees, the Dodgers, the Cubs, and the Los Angeles, California, USA, Earth Angels Baseball Club Incorportaed of SouthEastern Anaheim, Ballpark District. (The Heightened Emotion Monkey of Rallying is not an official mascot) .
Cleveland is a thing called "Slider". The Red Sox have the god-awful "Wally the Green Monster" The White Sox is a mess called Southpaw, I can only assume named after the cheap beer he drinks. Take a look for yourself. Ones not there include the Reds "Gapper", Texas' "Rangers Capitan", KC's Sluggerrr (spelling correct - you see it's a LION!) , and San Fran's Lou Seal (I hear he won't come back where he belongs).
Hmmm I think it's time to rate the mascots.
Friday, January 14, 2005
Can I get 5 hosers for my 4 Yankees?
While reading up on the (ill-advised) quest for Esteban Loaiza, I read a quote that interested me.
"Nothing against the city of Montreal, but any time you can add a team to the eighth-largest television market and factor in those ratings that that market can produce, it's a plus," Bell said.
I'm not going to tell you that Montreal is a better TV market, or baseball market, or farmer's market than DC (though maybe if there was such a thing as a cheese and beret market). Instead, the quote got me thinking about where Montreal would fit into the US TV market. Obviously there will be future expansion / moves, the question of whether Montreal will be considered again has a lot to do with it's relative size.
Since television market information for Canada is limited, I'll have to extrapolate from population data. Montreal would rank as something like the 16th largest city in the Canada/US Mega-Country, slightly more coffee drinkers than in Seattle, slightly fewer retirees as in Phoenix. In TV Markets - that would put them somewhere around 12-15.
There are no larger TV markets without a team. Of about the same size - Sacramento (19th) wouldn't have a team beacuse of its proximity to San Fran and Oakland. Which by the way I find curious. Sacramento is about 90 miles from Oakland/SF. That's roughly the same distance between NY and Philly, and Philly and Baltimore, and twice the distance from Baltimore to DC. It should get a look, but it won't - because it's still considered SF/Oak Sphere of Influence. Baseball needs a Boxer Rebellion. (Hey High School World History reference shout out! There ain't no rebellion like a Sugar Mama Boxer Rebellion. yeah, yeeahh!) Orlando is 20th, but I don't like their chances either. If we had some space shifting technology from the 30th century that allowed the Devil Ray and Marlins to play in the same stadium at the same time but with only one audience, there still would be only 12 thousand people there. Florida is the Atlanta of sports states. Then you get to Portalnd (24th), which is a good market but probably 70% the size Montreal.
This seems to indicate that Montreal would get another look soon. Ha! I forgot about the exchange rate. One Canadian is only worth 4/5th an American. Montreal is actually even smaller than Portland! Actually, there are two good reasons why I believe this won't happen. First I think the MLB wants to move West. They want to be on the coast of Tupac and Ice Cube, for the simple reason that they don't want to fit any more teams in the East or the Central. They want to pump up the 4 team West. The second reason is that they want to perpetuate the myth that baseball failed in Montreal (rather than expose the reality of MLB killing it).
Where will baseball eventually end up, giving that expansion/movement is inevitable to some degree? Well Portland is a gimme. It has everything MLB wants. Western Time Zone, no conflicts with nearby teams, a probably sweet deal with the city. I don't believe they'll be in Vegas anytime soon. The gambling is an issue, but not nearly as much as the fact that Vegas is a lousy TV market (because of it's peculiar population make-up and a suburbia consisting of tumbleweeds and iguanas). With Vegas out, it becomes a crapshoot. The Norfolk to Raleigh/Durham to Charlotte corridor becomes an option, as well as Nashville, or Salt Lake City. The sizes of these cities brings up a curious option - Vancouver. It would allow MLB to claim that it didn't give up on Canada and would give it another Western team. Though Seattle might have an issue with this choice.
Making a guess into the future: The next team (for sale or movement) will go to Portland. That I'd put money on. The team after that (expansion usually happens in 2s) well.. if it's expansion I'd say Salt Lake City. (If you think the lack of interest will matter to the MLB, think again. Remember that other cities showed more than DC, but MLB waited till they got the deal they wanted from DC.) If it's a new team (or an eastern city movement) I'd guess Charlotte.
"Nothing against the city of Montreal, but any time you can add a team to the eighth-largest television market and factor in those ratings that that market can produce, it's a plus," Bell said.
I'm not going to tell you that Montreal is a better TV market, or baseball market, or farmer's market than DC (though maybe if there was such a thing as a cheese and beret market). Instead, the quote got me thinking about where Montreal would fit into the US TV market. Obviously there will be future expansion / moves, the question of whether Montreal will be considered again has a lot to do with it's relative size.
Since television market information for Canada is limited, I'll have to extrapolate from population data. Montreal would rank as something like the 16th largest city in the Canada/US Mega-Country, slightly more coffee drinkers than in Seattle, slightly fewer retirees as in Phoenix. In TV Markets - that would put them somewhere around 12-15.
There are no larger TV markets without a team. Of about the same size - Sacramento (19th) wouldn't have a team beacuse of its proximity to San Fran and Oakland. Which by the way I find curious. Sacramento is about 90 miles from Oakland/SF. That's roughly the same distance between NY and Philly, and Philly and Baltimore, and twice the distance from Baltimore to DC. It should get a look, but it won't - because it's still considered SF/Oak Sphere of Influence. Baseball needs a Boxer Rebellion. (Hey High School World History reference shout out! There ain't no rebellion like a Sugar Mama Boxer Rebellion. yeah, yeeahh!) Orlando is 20th, but I don't like their chances either. If we had some space shifting technology from the 30th century that allowed the Devil Ray and Marlins to play in the same stadium at the same time but with only one audience, there still would be only 12 thousand people there. Florida is the Atlanta of sports states. Then you get to Portalnd (24th), which is a good market but probably 70% the size Montreal.
This seems to indicate that Montreal would get another look soon. Ha! I forgot about the exchange rate. One Canadian is only worth 4/5th an American. Montreal is actually even smaller than Portland! Actually, there are two good reasons why I believe this won't happen. First I think the MLB wants to move West. They want to be on the coast of Tupac and Ice Cube, for the simple reason that they don't want to fit any more teams in the East or the Central. They want to pump up the 4 team West. The second reason is that they want to perpetuate the myth that baseball failed in Montreal (rather than expose the reality of MLB killing it).
Where will baseball eventually end up, giving that expansion/movement is inevitable to some degree? Well Portland is a gimme. It has everything MLB wants. Western Time Zone, no conflicts with nearby teams, a probably sweet deal with the city. I don't believe they'll be in Vegas anytime soon. The gambling is an issue, but not nearly as much as the fact that Vegas is a lousy TV market (because of it's peculiar population make-up and a suburbia consisting of tumbleweeds and iguanas). With Vegas out, it becomes a crapshoot. The Norfolk to Raleigh/Durham to Charlotte corridor becomes an option, as well as Nashville, or Salt Lake City. The sizes of these cities brings up a curious option - Vancouver. It would allow MLB to claim that it didn't give up on Canada and would give it another Western team. Though Seattle might have an issue with this choice.
Making a guess into the future: The next team (for sale or movement) will go to Portland. That I'd put money on. The team after that (expansion usually happens in 2s) well.. if it's expansion I'd say Salt Lake City. (If you think the lack of interest will matter to the MLB, think again. Remember that other cities showed more than DC, but MLB waited till they got the deal they wanted from DC.) If it's a new team (or an eastern city movement) I'd guess Charlotte.
Monday, January 10, 2005
Enjoy it while you can
Pictures will still be in Expos uniforms for a good 2 months now...maybe three.
Larry Broadway, looking fashionable
I imagine new pictures will be taken during Spring Training. Turn, turn, turn.
Larry Broadway, looking fashionable
I imagine new pictures will be taken during Spring Training. Turn, turn, turn.
Wednesday, January 05, 2005
Hey "Mon"
Travelling a little further down the rails on the HOF train, I was wondering who will be the last player making it toe Cooperstown with a MON on the plaque? Assuming none of our rookies or youngsters surprise we've got relatively few candidates.
Randy Johnson and Pedro Martinez are locks. I'd imagine Pedro will retire after Randy, but it will be close. They should be in around 2011 or so. Anyone of Lee Smith, Andre Dawson, Tim Raines, and Vlad Guerrero (if he keeps up his pace) could make it. Obviously Vlad would be the last. Giving him 8 more years and a year or two for induction...2018? Carl Pavano and Larry Walker have an outside chance, but I wouldn't bet on either.
So all Expos fans - clear your schedule for the second half of the next decade. It'll be your last chance to celebrate Les Expos.
Randy Johnson and Pedro Martinez are locks. I'd imagine Pedro will retire after Randy, but it will be close. They should be in around 2011 or so. Anyone of Lee Smith, Andre Dawson, Tim Raines, and Vlad Guerrero (if he keeps up his pace) could make it. Obviously Vlad would be the last. Giving him 8 more years and a year or two for induction...2018? Carl Pavano and Larry Walker have an outside chance, but I wouldn't bet on either.
So all Expos fans - clear your schedule for the second half of the next decade. It'll be your last chance to celebrate Les Expos.
Moving & Jack Morris and the Quotable Stat
For Nationals news please turn your radio dial to
Natsbaseball.blogspot.com
This is the new home of my Nationals related blogging. Two Solariums, quite a find. All will be moved and nice and ready by the end of this weekend, but posting has already begun. I'm sure this will increase my readership by leaps and bounds as anti-Expo Washington sites will be forced to acknowledge my presence, now.
The original and still the best exposbaseball DOT blogspot DOT com will still be bringing you Expos news and the occasional random thought. Such as
Jack Morris and the quotable stat
Originally the stat to quote for Jack Morris' HOF case was "Most wins in the 80's" Then people realized most wins in the 80's doesn't mean you have the most wins from '78 to '88 or '81 to '91. It was just an arbitrary 10 year period and when you start looking at such things you get a lot of non Hall of Famers leading the lists. So now the quote is "Won 36 more games than any other pitcher during the time period in which he pitched". That got me thinking. Who exactly did he outduel? The 80's weren't exactly known for it's pitching (or it's hitting, for that matter. It was the decade of the Stolen Base and Slap Hitter) The list...
Jack Morris... 233
Bob Welch... 192
Dave Stieb... 174
Hmm. That's a mighty mediocre list Morris beat out there (to be fair I think Nolan Ryan is 4th or 5th - but he didn't get in because of his win total). Is "Better than non Hall of Famers" now all it takes to get in? I'm pretty sure that Tim Wallach was better than say Mike Pagliarulo and Dean Palmer.
Put Tim Wallach in the hall!
Natsbaseball.blogspot.com
This is the new home of my Nationals related blogging. Two Solariums, quite a find. All will be moved and nice and ready by the end of this weekend, but posting has already begun. I'm sure this will increase my readership by leaps and bounds as anti-Expo Washington sites will be forced to acknowledge my presence, now.
The original and still the best exposbaseball DOT blogspot DOT com will still be bringing you Expos news and the occasional random thought. Such as
Jack Morris and the quotable stat
Originally the stat to quote for Jack Morris' HOF case was "Most wins in the 80's" Then people realized most wins in the 80's doesn't mean you have the most wins from '78 to '88 or '81 to '91. It was just an arbitrary 10 year period and when you start looking at such things you get a lot of non Hall of Famers leading the lists. So now the quote is "Won 36 more games than any other pitcher during the time period in which he pitched". That got me thinking. Who exactly did he outduel? The 80's weren't exactly known for it's pitching (or it's hitting, for that matter. It was the decade of the Stolen Base and Slap Hitter) The list...
Jack Morris... 233
Bob Welch... 192
Dave Stieb... 174
Hmm. That's a mighty mediocre list Morris beat out there (to be fair I think Nolan Ryan is 4th or 5th - but he didn't get in because of his win total). Is "Better than non Hall of Famers" now all it takes to get in? I'm pretty sure that Tim Wallach was better than say Mike Pagliarulo and Dean Palmer.
Put Tim Wallach in the hall!
Tuesday, January 04, 2005
Rock, Chalk, no Hawk - Conspiracy!
In reverse:
HAWK
Andre Dawson was not voted into the HOF. He's making progress slowly but surely. In percentages from the 2002 vote we've got 45.3% - 50% - 50% - 52.3% at this rate it'll take Andre...about 24 years to make it to Cooperstown. Is he worth a vote? Well he was a good outfielder for about 15 years ('77-'92) but he could never string together great seasons. They came sporadically. He was just too much of a hacker (44 walks is his season high) Initially an above average fielder, he really hobbled around at the end. As outfielders go, I'd give him a nod over Jim Rice, since Hawk's more well rounded, but it's a tough call whether I'd vote him in the hall. Probably not.
CHALK
Sandberg and Boggs were voted in completely surprising noone. Both of them deserved it Boggs was THE contact hitter for about a decade and Ryno was one of the best second baseman ever. I was holding out for a surprise (Gossage) but didn't get one.
ROCK
Tim Raines will be up for enshrinement next year. I'd argue he's a better candidate than Dawson. More good years ('81-'98), almost 3 times the walks, almost 1000 RBI's from a guy who spent most of his career leading off in the National League. Not a great fielder but I remember a solid one. He's probably going to get lost in the shuffle in year 2 because everything he did well, Rickey Henderson was phenomenal at. I hope he gets a serious look.
CONSPIRACY!
The only two on the ballot to get 0 votes? Otis "Expo from 88-90" Nixon and Mark "Expo in 89" Langston. I smell more anti-Expo bias. Lee "Expo in 97" Smith is also probably suffering from this nefarious scheme hatched atop baseball's ivory tower to erase Montreal from existence. Be warned!
HAWK
Andre Dawson was not voted into the HOF. He's making progress slowly but surely. In percentages from the 2002 vote we've got 45.3% - 50% - 50% - 52.3% at this rate it'll take Andre...about 24 years to make it to Cooperstown. Is he worth a vote? Well he was a good outfielder for about 15 years ('77-'92) but he could never string together great seasons. They came sporadically. He was just too much of a hacker (44 walks is his season high) Initially an above average fielder, he really hobbled around at the end. As outfielders go, I'd give him a nod over Jim Rice, since Hawk's more well rounded, but it's a tough call whether I'd vote him in the hall. Probably not.
CHALK
Sandberg and Boggs were voted in completely surprising noone. Both of them deserved it Boggs was THE contact hitter for about a decade and Ryno was one of the best second baseman ever. I was holding out for a surprise (Gossage) but didn't get one.
ROCK
Tim Raines will be up for enshrinement next year. I'd argue he's a better candidate than Dawson. More good years ('81-'98), almost 3 times the walks, almost 1000 RBI's from a guy who spent most of his career leading off in the National League. Not a great fielder but I remember a solid one. He's probably going to get lost in the shuffle in year 2 because everything he did well, Rickey Henderson was phenomenal at. I hope he gets a serious look.
CONSPIRACY!
The only two on the ballot to get 0 votes? Otis "Expo from 88-90" Nixon and Mark "Expo in 89" Langston. I smell more anti-Expo bias. Lee "Expo in 97" Smith is also probably suffering from this nefarious scheme hatched atop baseball's ivory tower to erase Montreal from existence. Be warned!
