Quillz

5 minutes ago, NicDB said:

Another fact... the NL East is the only of the current six divisions that has never hosted either team.

Both have been members of the AL West, and NL Central.  The Brewers were in the AL East and AL Central.  The Astros have been in the NL West.

And let's not ignore an Astros vs. Brewers World Series would be between the two teams that switched leagues. (The Astros have the distinction of being the only team to ever appear in the World Series representing both leagues. The Brewers can pull this off too should they advance). Unfortunately, neither will have the distinction of winning a championship from both leagues (Brewers lost in '82 as the AL team, Astros lost in '05 as the NL team).

On 10/7/2015 at 6:26 AM, pmoehrin said:

Since the LDS became the norm in 1995, this is the first year where none of the original American League teams are represented in that round.

This will also be just the third time in American League history where none of the original 8 teams will be represented in the ALCS. The two previous years were 1982 (Angels vs Brewers) and 1985 (Blue Jays vs Royals).

There has also never been a World Series where a team that was active in 1901 wasn't involved.

Oddly enough, didn't this get broken just a few weeks after this post? The 2015 World Series was Royals vs. Mets, neither of which were active in 1901. 2018 could potentially give us Astros vs. Brewers, which would seem to be the second time such a scenario will occur (both being 1960s-era expansion teams).

On 8/12/2015 at 1:14 PM, OnWis97 said:

People like to say that the most unbreakable MLB record is Dimaggio's 56-game hit streak.

Try breaking this one: Ed Ruelbach two complete game shutouts in one Day!

On 8/12/2015 at 2:23 PM, jmoe12 said:

Or Johnny Vander meer's back to back no-hitters

On 8/12/2015 at 2:52 PM, waltere said:

Or Fernando Tatis' two grand slams in one inning

What's interesting about all these is they are theoretically breakable. Some records that were eventually broken, such as Cal Ripken Jr's consecutive games played, were themselves remarkable because the previous records were thought to be unbreakable. Many pitching records were achieved because the early days of baseball had no real concept of a bullpen or a closer, and pitchers were expected to go entire games.

There are some records in baseball that are truly unbreakable, even in theory, due to rule changes. One of them being the 1899 Cleveland Spiders losing 101 road games. Obviously not breakable anymore due to a team playing no more than 82* road games.

*An 82nd road game can occur if there is a game 163 (i.e. a one-game playoff). And if that team goes on to the actual wild card playoff game, that would be an 83rd road game. If they keep advancing but never host any of the playoff rounds, there'd still be a maximum of 94 road games (assuming every playoff series went the full length).

• With the Astros losing tonight in the ALCS, no baseball team since the "modern" playoff structure (1995-present) has yet to sweep every round. (LDS, LCS, World Series). That would require going a perfect 11-0 (although 12-0 is possible as of 2012 with the one-off wild card game).
• Every MLB team except for the Seattle Mariners and Washington Nationals has been to the World Series at least once. The Rangers were the second-to-last, not reaching the Series until 2010 (and prior to this year, had never even won a playoff series). The Nationals have only ever won a playoff series as the Montreal Expos.
• While New York City is most notable for city vs. city World Series, it has happened elsewhere. The Cardinals and Browns, both from St. Louis, played in the 1944 series. (The Browns later moved to Baltimore and became the Orioles). The '44 series is notable for all seven games being played in the same park (which is not possible anymore as no baseball teams share a stadium).

1 hour ago, daveindc said:

 

 

Reds should go back to this look, head to toe. At least as a weekly throwback. 

Completely agree. Still looks completely modern and unique to this day. Very much would have been one of the "untouchable" looks in baseball if only the Reds kept it around.

1 hour ago, Kaz said:

All baseball jerseys should be required to have names on their backs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, even the Yankees

I like the compromise the Giants and Red Sox have, where they only have NOB road uniforms. I wouldn't mind more teams doing this, as long as the home uniform number is larger to compromise.

1 hour ago, Rj0498 said:

I actually like these more than the showtime unis.

 

Is this really that unpopular? Other than the prestige of the Showtime era, those jerseys really did have some flaws (and things that just haven't held up well). Like that "orphaned" S in the wordmark, the overly heavy drop shadows on the numbers, etc. Granted, I have never cared for the away jersey's reversed wordmark and number colors, especially since gold does not contrast well against purple at all.

56 minutes ago, ozzyman314 said:

 

I gotta be honest, I really like these Jersey's more. Especially the road version. (as well as the lighter Blue Flying Elvis)

The "pinstripes" really aren't that noticeable unless you really look at them. 

 

IDK why they've never once used these as some kind of throwback. It's the only ones they could get away with with that dumb helmet rule now. 

I think what bothers me the most about these are the numbers. I just hate that font, at least the italic. The numbers the Patriots use now are really good, and could easily be recolored for a modern variant of this  uniform style. I guess I should restate my opinion, it's really not all that bad. I think I disliked the pinstripes more because it reminds me of a soccer team than me actually not liking them in terms of design.

As to why the Patriots don't revive them for a throwback, no idea. Maybe because the lone Super Bowl run aside, the Patriots just weren't that great of a franchise during that era. Or maybe Kraft just really hates them.

3 minutes ago, Jimmy Lethal said:

 

what are you talking about those jerseys were fantastic

what are you talking about those jerseys were awful

On 2/15/2018 at 3:54 PM, Jimmy Lethal said:

Flying Elvis is a far better logo than Pat Patriot. It's sleek and clean, while Pat's far too detailed to effectively work as a football logo. I have the same issue with the pre-1996 Eagles logo.

I agree. Pat Patriot is fine as a secondary logo for merchandise, but doesn't work well as an actual sports logo. However, I also think the brighter colors the Patriots used, circa 1993-1999, were better. Seems they, along with several other teams, used darker colors with the onset of the new millennium. But with some teams starting to go back to brighter colors (such as Kelly green), I wouldn't mind the Patriots do the same.

Granted, was not a fan of that era's jersey, especially with the fake pinstripes.

2 hours ago, BrandMooreArt said:

 

my perception is this will be a legitimate, professional league without the cheeseyness of last time. this feels like they’re building football from the ground up and will evaluate every aspect in order to make a great game/league. they also will take risks and do things the NFL either wont or cant- im imagining the games broadcasted on their website/apps or maybe a partner like Netflix. 

 

translating all that into visuals, i can imagine 2 different strategies. 1) traditional and professional - with the NFL/Nike pushing variations and abominations of team identities, a very simple approach to teams would appeal to the audience they’re speaking to and represent a purity if football

 

2) design of the future. represent the league in a way that feels forward thinking and innovative. league uniforms that would be inspired by Oregon, or totally re-think what a football uniform needs. maybe there a cold/warm weather gear set or the inspiration comes from somewhere else, like track or speed skating.  

#2 seems contradictory to #1, where you stated there would be a very simple approach to teams. Unless you meant one or the other?

17 hours ago, andrewharrington said:

I fear the main focus of this league is going to be an anti-NFL, "where players respect the flag and our heroes" brand.

That appears to be the case. So their entire marketing angle is based on (IMO) a short-lived, non-controversy.

17 hours ago, insert name said:

You ruined the Cubs jersey for me. 

I think I first noticed it Game 2 or 3 of the NLDS this postseason, whenever they first wore it against the Nats. I saw it immediately and could not unsee it. Seriously, why? The logo existing makes it already copyrighted, does the jersey really need to confirm it?

You know what really bugs me about the Cubs home uniform? The giant TM right underneath their chest logo. Seriously, why is that there? Other teams don't have the trademark symbol on their jerseys.

4 hours ago, Ben in LA said:

This is the EXACT case with me when it comes to the Dodgers and Angels. I follow both teams ( and want success with both; a Dodgers/Angels WS would be a dream)...but I’m a Dodgers fan more.

And... I'm exactly the same. I've never been a truly die hard fan of any given team, I'm more of a "regional" fan, if that makes sense. I love the Dodgers, but I was happy when the Angels won in 2002, because they're my AL team. I love the Lakers, but I would be okay with the Clippers winning (LOL!). I was happy when the Ducks won the Cup, but I cared much more when the Kings won.

And yes... I don't even hate the Giants. I have this weird thing where I usually end up supporting the team that wins the division or is from the same state of my actually loved teams. I figure, if my team can't do it, at least someone else from the same division/state can.

I actually am a big fan of the Nationals uniforms. No idea how unpopular that might be.

Specifically, the front jersey numbers. I think the placement is good. I used to think the Reds had it right, putting the number directly opposite of the logo, but the more I look at the Nats, the more I don't feel like the numbers are too low anymore. They seem right. But I think it has to do with the Nats using a very blocky number font (which I also quite like), so it aesthetically seems to work well lower down the jersey.

Since the realignment within the NHL, I think I'm coming to prefer the idea of fewer, larger divisions. While it's too late now, I liked the idea of MLB having just two divisions per league instead of three. I don't know if this is unpopular or not, but I see now why many people bemoan 1993 as the year of the "last pure playoffs."

The only remaining World Series combination to feature "virgin" teams would be the Mariners playing the Nationals. Every other MLB club has been to at least one World Series, although a few have yet to win.

As of 2017, the 1980 World Series is the last time two teams that had yet to win a championship faced off.

3 hours ago, kroywen said:

Do they decide who is the most deserving champion? No. But once you accept that fact as a necessary trade-off for increased entertainment, playoffs really do make sense. I don't support large playoff fields, but a smaller playoff field of the best regular season teams seems like a reasonable compromise between having "deserving teams" and providing great entertainment. (Also eliminates often lopsided early rounds that are a slog to get through.)

This has got me thinking about what methods would produce the truly best format for determining the champion. I figure it would have to involve some kind of round robin, requiring every playoff team to play one another at least twice, home and away. Because only then would every possible match-up be tested.

The Marlins are the only MLB club with multiple championships that have never lost a playoff series. 

Won it all in 1997 and 2003. 

And the ‘76 Reds are the only team to ever sweep every playoff series. At the time, there was only the LCS and World Series. 

Is there a way I can type in the angle I want between two points? Normally, between two points, you have to drag those horizontal lines and move them precisely to get the curve/angle you want. Isn't there a way I just say I want a curve between the two points at X degrees?

I never minded the Mets in black, either. But I think the reason it wasn't all that popular was due to mind share, so to speak. They were blue and orange from their inception (and was a nod to the former NL teams), and they won their championships in those colors and uniforms. So while I think black was integrated well into their identity, it really seemed just like trend riding.

On the other hand, never liked the Royals in black and I never thought they pulled it off well. Their uniforms the past few years have been nearly perfect, I think. I'm glad they won the '15 World Series looking the way they do. Granted, it bothers me they still have a black drop shadow on their primary logo. Have they forgotten to update it?

On 8/3/2017 at 0:38 PM, vikmurphy said:

That stadium is 19 years old how did it fall into such a spot of disrepair? 

I have to say I am amazed that stadiums like Fenway, Wrigley, and Dodger Stadium have managed to last as long as they have. While stadiums that weren't even 20 years old are already being abandoned. I guess it really does come down to maintenance. You'd think baseball clubs would do whatever it takes to keep their stadiums in good working order, but I guess not.

EDIT: Some other posts have stated the stadium is fine, and this is mainly just a ploy by the D'Backs to get some upgrades they want.

On 7/30/2017 at 5:52 AM, BeerGuyJordan said:

Some cities aren't a significant secondary market for any team. Nashville, Las Vegas, Portland, and Charlotte are examples of that. It absolutely should be one of many factors considered. 

Portland, in the few times I've been there, always seems to be showing the Mariners on TV. Would the city not be considered a secondary market for Seattle?

On 7/23/2017 at 6:56 AM, HedleyLamarr said:

Rays went to the World Series in 2007

It was actually 2008. The Red Sox won the pennant in 2007.