Jump to content

leopard88

Members
  • Posts

    7,898
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by leopard88

  1. I agree wholeheartedly. I understand and pay attention to some stats beyond the traditional biggies in baseball, like WHIP. The rest eventually make my eyes glaze over and compel me to turn the page. When you start talking about OPS+, FIP, Defensive WAR and UZR, you've generally jumped the shark. Maybe this is because I'm 48 years old and none of that stuff existed when I was growing up. However, I can't be the only one who gets bored with the stathead articles.
  2. It's obvious that many of these were designed by a graduate of THE Ohio State University. . . . and they're all pretty bad.
  3. I will say that she didn't have the "announcer voice" in college.
  4. From ESPN -- Beth Mowins joined ESPN in 1994 as a play-by-play commentator. She currently calls NCAA Championships in basketball, softball, soccer and volleyball, in addition to regular-season games for college football and men’s and women’s basketball. Mowins began calling college football games on ESPNU in 2005, and currently calls the ESPN2 College Football Saturday game with Joey Galloway and Paul Carcaterra. http://espnmediazone.com/us/bios/mowins_beth/
  5. Good idea for a thread. I'm curious to hear opinions on Beth Mowins. I went to college with her, so my opinion is a little biased.
  6. Likes for everyone! You get a like! You get a like!
  7. I had a version of a game very similar to this that my mom ordered from the back of a cereal box when I was about 7. The game play was the same, but I just had two generic teams with a player for each position. I used to play it all the time. I had NBA Bas-ket and an older version that was just called Bas-Ket. I used to play that all of the time too. To play against myself, I would set a timer for each quarter and work both sets of levers. Shots from the opposite baseline were three-pointers. The non-NBA version that I had looked just like this.
  8. Same here . . . except I don't remember a period when they were anonymous.
  9. I can still see who liked posts in the same old location. Am I the only one?
  10. I can see who likes my posts on the actual posts . . . in the same location as before.
  11. I came in midway through the process and didn't see all of the other posts. Sorry.
  12. I didn't know we had "reputation points." I'm not even sure what those are . . . but I have more than that CC97 guy!
  13. I didn't read through 5 pages of posts, so I must have missed most of the evolution. I'm confused . . .
  14. I suspect the card just reused the International League Orioles uniforms because the new ones weren't unveiled on time. The IL Orioles used the birds-on-a-bat look with significant frequency. 1939 (based on the shoulder patch) -- I have a book at home that has other pictures of the IL Orioles. I'm now curious to pull it out and take a look. Meanwhile, in looking for pictures, I found this link that shows other uniforms used during spring training in 1954. http://toddradom.com/60-years-of-orioles-orange-black-and-a-confusing-start/
  15. Nice find. The article says the Pilots ditched a planned white cap with a blue bill because "[t]he American League seems to have had a rule against two-tone hats at this time." However, the Orioles already had black caps with orange bills by 1969.
  16. I added the bolded part so the horror can be truly appreciated.
  17. As I understand it, something like this --
  18. I know you have already done one Lafayette logo for me (see my avatar). Would it be too much to ask that you update this one too?
  19. Only to those of us old enough to know what "Pitfall" was.
  20. The hats are great (especially the navy one), but I always hated the beveled, partially arched wordmark. Beyond that, the cap W doesn't match the wordmark W. There still would have been a mismatch between the cap and uniform, just a different one than the one that actually occurred, EDIT -- The wordmark looks better in this image than it ever did on a jersey. Still not good . . . but at least passable.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.