kroywen

Members
  • Content count

    888
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

kroywen last won the day on March 12

kroywen had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,142 Excellent

About kroywen

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    New York
  • Favourite Teams
    Yankees, Manchester United, Jets, Rangers, USMNT, NYCFC

Recent Profile Visitors

1,194 profile views
  1. I could see an Inland Empire location working out well in AAA. How do the territorial rights play out in Southern California? I know that Los Angeles, Ventura, and Orange Counties are shared territory between the Dodgers and Angels - do San Bernardino or Riverside fall into either team's territory? It doesn't seem to, based on this document via SABR, but that's also from the early 90s, and may not be comprehensive anyway. The other thing with the Inland Empire is that there have been periodic rumblings of the Angels considering it as a future ballpark location. As of February, it sounds like they're committed to renovating Angel Stadium, but I'm sure they'd like to keep their options open around the region, in case negotiations with Anaheim fall through. They may not be keen on a AAA team relocating to the Inland Empire, especially if it results in a new or renovated MiL ballpark.
  2. What's really unfortunate is that if Vegas had a modern ballpark, they'd actually be a really attractive AAA affiliate for ML teams in the Southwest. Vegas is located closer to the Dodgers, Angels, Padres, and D-Backs than each of those teams' current AAA affiliates, and there would never be an issue with getting flights from Vegas to those cities (and the drive from Vegas to those cities would be relatively easy, by Western standards at least). I highly doubt we'll ever see improvements in the Vegas situation unless an ML decides to buy the 51s, and pour money into a new stadium. The chances are of that are incredibly low though. Neither the county nor the state are going to want to sink money into a AAA ballpark when they're building a new football stadium and hockey arena (and their fiscal situation isn't great anyway), and no ML team or MiL owner is going to want to pay for an entire AAA ballpark either. Frankly, MiLB might be best off abandoning the Vegas market and relocating the team elsewhere (i.e. to a city with an open checkbook), but I don't see that happening in the near future. (FWIW, the condition of Cashman Field also serves as a minor hindrance to the potential relocation of a Major League team to Las Vegas. It would obviously serve as the temporary venue of a relocated team - likely with hastily-constructed stands to increase capacity - and given that the stadium isn't even up to AAA standards, I can't see any ML owner willing to play there for any amount of time. Obviously, I think there's much bigger stumbling blocks to MLB relocation to Vegas - gambling, a transient population, lack of a strong economic base, etc. - but the poor condition of Cashman Field does not help matters.)
  3. And I should mention that all three of those above color schemes I posted look good with white numbers as well: When your base color is very bright, generally you can go either way with number color (either white, or in a secondary color with good contrast), and make it work. If the base color is darker, though? Stick with white or very light numbers.
  4. Exactly. In baseball, you can *kind of* get away with color numbers on a color jersey, since it's not nearly as important to identify players in motion in the middle of a crowded field of play. But even there, I think white/light numbers on a dark background just simply look better and are easier to distinguish. Compare this: to this: The white numbers both look better and are easier to read. As a general rule of thumb, the only times color-on-color numbers really look good (and are easy to read) are on a brightly colored background:
  5. There is one tiny portion of Urlacher's stripe that is cut off, but I think that's more a production issue than anything. If you look at his other sleeve, the three stripes are there in full. In this in-game photo: all three stripes appear to be in tact and complete: If these three stripes can fit on a tiny sleeve like Urlacher's, then clearly the thinner 3 stripes of the 49ers can fit as well.
  6. That's right, the wild card plays the team with the best record in the league, regardless of division. Honestly, it makes way more sense than the strange "no in-division opponents in the LDS" rule that used to exist.
  7. Honestly, just about every team should move the TV numbers up to the shoulders, save for teams with vertical stripes on their shoulders (Jets, Colts, Panthers, Rams, etc.). It looks so much better in most cases, and leaves far more room for actual sleeve stripes.
  8. Three stripes can easily fit on a sleeve with Nike's template: The 49ers easily could've fit the three stripes on their sleeves if they wanted to. I'm not sure what the motivation was - wouldn't be surprised if it was Nike's influence - but going with two stripes is an awfully strange decision.
  9. The NFL has a slew of forgotten secondary logos that apparently are still in "official" use: (I've never seen that Panthers logo used before at all.) (That Pats logo gets very sporadic use to this day, but I think it's quite rare.)
  10. Yeah, this is kind of the best of a bunch of less-than-ideal options. Wrigley Field simply doesn't have space for modern bullpens out in the open. It was either this or being on the foul lines, which I've always found to be a tad dangerous (what with foul balls and all - I'm surprised there haven't been more injuries from that). I do wish there were a better way for fans and coaches to see in the bullpens. If it were any other ballpark, I'd say they should've put clear plexiglass in where the bullpens are, so fans and coaches could at least see in them. But that would probably look terrible at Wrigley Field. Perhaps a simple chain link fence would've worked, rather than the Under Armour ad - it would've meshed better with the chain-link 'basket' above the fence. (A climate controlled seating area could've been placed inside the bullpen, like most ballparks have these days.)
  11. A well-designed app icon should be recognizable with a single, quick glance. This would definitely not be. And if for no other reason than that, Pandora has done a great disservice not only to themselves, but to PayPal as well.
  12. I'd agree there. There really is no *good* place to put one of those chest patches. And get rid of those hideous captain's patches while we're at it. They hit the trifecta of being pointless, ugly, and off-center.
  13. As someone who grew up going to ballparks with video boards, I totally get the appeal for Cubs fans of finally having one at Wrigley. They can be great for instant replays, showing highlights, and showing old clips. I just find the ones at Wrigley to be very intrusive, given that they essentially operate as spite fences to cut off the view from the houses across the street. A small video board near the LF pole would've been relatively unobstrusive, I think. I do think the WS win will probably help with making the recent changes at Wrigley seem emblematic of a more successful 'post-curse' Cubs franchise. I wouldn't be surprised to see more ads at Wrigley, which I find a shame, but I understand the economics of the situation. Altogether, I'm sure we can all agree that a Wrigley Field with video boards and some advertising is still immeasurably better than a new ballpark out in Schaumburg or wherever else, so if that's the price to pay to make Wrigley profitable, I can accept it (even as a purist when it comes to ballparks).
  14. I'll fully admit - I haven't been to Wrigley in over a decade, so I can't speak to the in-person experience. But looking at it via photos and on TV, the scoreboards do seem to detract from the overall attractiveness and historic nature of the ballpark, and cause the park to be more removed from its surrounding neighborhood, which was always one of the biggest appeals of Wrigley Field. I have no doubt that the various amenities in the ballpark have greatly improved the experience, and I think the renovation overall was a net positive for that reason (and since it made Wrigley economically viable as a modern-day park). But I still think it would've been even better without the big video scoreboards, or perhaps just with one small scoreboard in the LF corner. That would've been much cleaner visually, and better in keeping with the historic and neighborly feel of Wrigley Field.
  15. Honestly, the Coliseum is not worth saving at this point, IMO. It would be incredibly expensive to bring it up to modern standards, complete with luxury suites and the amenities that are standard for a modern ballpark. Even with massive improvements, it probably still wouldn't generate quite as much revenue as most brand new parks, while it wouldn't have the historical charm or tradition that Fenway, Wrigley, or Dodger Stadium have. The sightlines are not ideal for baseball, since it's a donut, and the location is in the middle of a parking lot for a once-bustling sports complex (as opposed to be more downtown, centrally-located spot). There's a persistent sewage problem that would need to be fixed for good. A renovated Oakland Coliseum would basically be Angels Stadium with a potential sewage problem. While Angels Stadium is a serviceable major league stadium, it's not a top-tier stadium by any means, and is poorly located relative to most modern stadiums (granted, Anaheim doesn't have much of a downtown area, unlike Oakland). And I assume it's not generating as much revenue as a new ballpark would, given that the Angels are seeking to build a new park at the end of their current lease. I know the Coliseum does have quite a bit of history behind it for A's fans, but Fenway or Wrigley it is not. A ballpark with mediocre sightlines, a dated design, poor location, and terrible infrastructure is not going to be viable in the 21st century. Better to build anew at a bayside location.