Should The Slate Be Wiped Clean For Teams That Relocate?

[The Brain]

While looking at some random baseball stats I noticed that the all time hits leader for the Washington Nationals is Tim Wallach. I remember Wallach as a pretty good third baseman when I was a kid and I wasn’t surprised to see his name. I do however have a little problem seeing his name on the list. Tim Wallach never played for the Washington Nationals. He did play 13 seasons with the Montreal Expos.

There have been several NFL, NBA, and NHL franchises that have relocated in my lifetime, but in MLB it has only happened once. I always liked the Montreal Expos but when they became the Washington Nationals in 2005 I felt the Expos franchise had died. In my opinion when a team relocates and changes its name that team should forfeit their heritage and start over. It just doesn’t seem right to me that Tim Wallach is the Nationals all time hits leader when he never wore a Washington Nationals uniform.

On the other hand I think I feel differently about teams who have relocated but kept the same name. For example, I don’t think the Tennessee Titans should have any ties to the Houston Oilers but I think its ok for the St. Louis Rams to recognize their history in Los Angeles. After all, Eric Dickerson and Kurt Warner were both Rams, but Warren Moon never played for the Titans and Vince Young never played for the Oilers. I guess I think changing cities is acceptable but when teams change the name of their franchise they’re saying they want a fresh start with a clean slate. What do you guys think?

 

[Nate DaMac]

Eh. I can see it from your perspective and it makes sense. But it just doesn't bother me that much. The team may change cities or nicknames, but it's still the same organization. If they were to wipe the slate clean it wouldn't bother me at all, it's not like the guy loses his record or anything. But at the same time, it's just a nickname and a new city. I guess I just don't put all that much stock into team names and heritage.

Besides, now someone has a goal to reach by trying to break said record. If that wasn't there, you'd have some guy with what, 180 hits as the all time leader? (I know nothing about Baseball, that was a random number.)

 

[hatehabsforever]

Interesting question. It can get even more complicated in a situation like in the NHL with the returning Winnipeg Jets. The Jets left Manitoba and went to Phoenix approximately 15 years ago. Any records or statistics from the Winnipeg Jets franchise went to the desert.

Now the Winnipeg Jets are back, compliments of the Atlanta Thrashers. So in determining the all time goal scorer, for example, whose stats do we look at, Winnipeg, Phoenix, Atlanta, or all of the above? The all time Jets leader could conceivably be a Coyote, even though the Jets are back.

The Charlotte Hornets left for New Orleans, then the Bobcats arrived in Charlotte. So how do you determine a statistical leader for Charlotte? And there'sots of such examples.

As usual, Brain got it right. If a franchise leaves a city and is renamed, the stats for this franchise end. The Montreal Expos died when they left Quebec. If they change cities but keep the same nickname, the stats continue. Tim Wallach could be the statistical leader for the Montreal Expos, of even the Washington Expos, but not the Washington Nationals, for whom he never played and forged no relationship with their fans.

 

[Big Sexy]

I definitely see where you are coming from but there really isn't a universal way that the situation is dealt with so it's hard to form a strong opinion either way. The Baltimore Ravens/Cleveland Browns are one great example of this. The Browns became the Ravens back in 1996 and for those first couple years I'm sure Cleveland Brown past players had their records as the franchise leaders. However, in 1999 the Browns returned to Cleveland and then it became like they had never left in terms of the history and the past records, and all of the sudden it was as if Baltimore was an expansion franchise all along.

On the flip side you have something like the Houston Oilers/Tennessee Titans situation. When the team first moved to Tennessee they were still called the Oilers for two seasons. Then with their new stadium being built they decided to change the name but keep the history. Now in 2002 Houston received an expansion franchise and they had an opportunity to do what the Browns did in 1999. The Oilers was one of the finalists for a team name but ultimately they decided upon the Texans name. Because of this, the Oilers history stayed with the Titans while the Texans started off fresh.

Basically there are different ways of going about the whole franchise history thing. Depending on the league and the situation it can be handled in a variety of ways. With the lack of continuity it is just hard to form a strong way of thinking one way or the other.